Language

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I have a question for all the Trad Latin Catholics out there.

What is so important about Latin?

The current Latin Mass Magazine has and interview with three priests who are trying to leave behind the Mass and go to the Trad Latin Mass.

One of them says (about the Mass), “The reason I’m actually seeking to leave it - rather than stay and ‘fight it out’ is simply this: it cannot be fixed. English, facing the people, the lack of rubrical acts of veneration…”

He actually lists the use of English as a reason. I guess he is unaware of the fact that the Trad Latin Mass was said in the vernacular languages in some places in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

As a Byzantine Catholic I find the issue of language odd. Our Divine Liturgy has always been done in the vernacular.

Is it better to have the majority of people in the pews not understanding what is being said? Is it better for those who can afford English-Latin Missals to read along instead of pray?

Again, this just strikes me as odd.

 

[otm]

ByzCath:

I have a question for all the Trad Latin Catholics out there.

What is so important about Latin?

The current Latin Mass Magazine has and interview with three priests who are trying to leave behind the Mass and go to the Trad Latin Mass.

One of them says (about the Mass), “The reason I’m actually seeking to leave it - rather than stay and ‘fight it out’ is simply this: it cannot be fixed. English, facing the people, the lack of rubrical acts of veneration…”

He actually lists the use of English as a reason. I guess he is unaware of the fact that the Trad Latin Mass was said in the vernacular languages in some places in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

As a Byzantine Catholic I find the issue of language odd. Our Divine Liturgy has always been done in the vernacular.

Is it better to have the majority of people in the pews not understanding what is being said? Is it better for those who can afford English-Latin Missals to read along instead of pray?

Again, this just strikes me as odd.

Don’t presume that because someone is quoted, that their statement is anything more than a personal opinion. It is not at all unusual for a magazine to have bias; and most of the articles will reflect that bias not only in who gets quoted, but how much.

Latin is an extremely long-standing tradition in the Roman rite, and as such, it becomes a contentious issue which resounds more in emotion that logic. I am amused by those who “feel” (and that is an excellent word) that Latin is somehow more holy, more “religious” or “pious” than their native language. I suspect that if they were to time-travel back to the time of Christ, they would gush and ooh and ah over Christ speaking in Aramaic; not because it was Aramaic, but because it “felt” so much holier. It seems to resound in the tension between god - Imminent, and God-Transcendent. God-Transcendent is so much more removed from this sinful world, and God-Imminent is so much messier a proposition.

Granted that we have swung too hard in some circumstances to the imminent, to the point of denying His transcendence, or at least denigrating it, there will always be tension between the two. Some on the other end of the spectrum want to deny the imminence, or at least not deal with it.

Much seems to be made by certain small groups about the return of the Tridentine liturgy. It amazes me how few people can even explain the differences. And we seem to be totally lacking in statistics. While I am not widely traveled, I rarely ever come across an approved Tridentine liturgy. Assuming 100 parishes in a diocese (probably somewhere between low and very low), and assuming 4 Masses/parish/Sunday average, if a diocese went from 1 Mass in 1 Parish on the weekend, to two parishes with one Mass on the weekend in the Tridintine format, we would have a 100% increase! Wow! Except, that instead of 25/100ths of 1 percent of the Masses being in the Tridintine format, we have 5/10ths of 1 percent; not what I would call an overwhelming statistic.

The United States is but a small part of the Catholic Church, and most of the foment I see about the Tridintine ordo versus the Ordo Missae seems to be from the US. It amazes me how certain individuals can become such experts in liturgy that they know more than most of the rest of the Church.

 

[mercygate]

I read that article, and Latin qua Latin was not the issue. These young priests find in the TLM a total theology that is not expressed in the Mass of Paul VI. (Look at both rites, and you’ll agree). There IS a change of emphasis. These men celebrate the Mass of Paul VI; they agree that it is valid, but they find the theology horizontal, pointing to the community rather than towards the glory of God and the Holy Mystery of the Sacrifice. They state that the spirituality of the TLM sustains their Priesthood in a way that the Mass of Paul VI does not. They also feel somewhat betrayed because throughout their seminary training they were encouraged, but now that they’re in the trenches, they are being given no quarter for their sacramental theology.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

mercygate:

I read that article, and Latin qua Latin was not the issue. These young priests find in the TLM a total theology that is not expressed in the Mass of Paul VI. (Look at both rites, and you’ll agree). There IS a change of emphasis. These men celebrate the Mass of Paul VI; they agree that it is valid, but they find the theology horizontal, pointing to the community rather than towards the glory of God and the Holy Mystery of the Sacrifice. They state that the spirituality of the TLM sustains their Priesthood in a way that the Mass of Paul VI does not. They also feel somewhat betrayed because throughout their seminary training they were encouraged, but now that they’re in the trenches, they are being given no quarter for their sacramental theology.

This may be so but he still lists English as the first thing when he says why he is “leaving” it behind.

otm,
I agree with what you say but this is not the only place where I have seen this expressed. Many Trad Latin Catholics think that Mass in the venacular is wrong.

I just can’t understand this idea as the Eastern Churches have always used the venacular and there were many places where the Trad Latin Mass was said in the venacular.

 

[mercygate]

ByzCath:

This may be so but he still lists English as the first thing when he says why he is “leaving” it behind.

otm,
I agree with what you say but this is not the only place where I have seen this expressed. Many Trad Latin Catholics think that Mass in the venacular is wrong.

I just can’t understand this idea as the Eastern Churches have always used the venacular and there were many places where the Trad Latin Mass was said in the venacular.

You would be the first to note as well, Byz, that the change INTO Latin, OUT of Greek was a change TO the vernacular. I love the TLM, but I’m afraid I can’t buy the Latin-only-or-nothing argument. Still, I do grasp their issue about the theology expressed in the rite.

 

[nancy3159]

The Mass in Latin or in Spanish or in Greek or in Polish or…it is all equally foreign.(Well, maybe I can follow a little of the Spanish…).

For me, the greater sense of the glory and the transcendance (sp?) of God is affected by the demeanor of the congregation and of the clergy: how prayerful, how aware are we of the sacred mystery?

 

[otm]

There were a series of reasons that we moved from the Tridintine rite. I suspect that their study of liturgy was somewhat skewed. And I am sick and tired of this arguement about horizontal versus vertical. The Mass is both sacrifice and sacred meal. Either one can get too much emphasis. It is both/and, not either/or. And their rejection of the Ordo Missae is at best misguided, as they wish to de-emphasize one to the detriment of the other. They are also deciding that they know better about Scripture; the changes to the Mass brought in a much richer and varied series of readings.

Reverence is not encapsualted in the number of times one genuflects. Neither is it encapsulated in whether one holds the Host with only thumb and one finger, or more. Some of the rubrics were somewhat over the top, bordering on hyper-reverence.

Christ had a lot to say to and about the Pharisees, who were overly enamoured with their traditions and rules. Rules serve the people; not people the rules. I truly feel sorry for these priests, because I am not sure they “get it”; get it about what priesthood is about, and what Mass is about, and about Christ’s question, to each and every one of us:“Who do you say I am?”. I suspect that they feel they are orthodox; but what I am hearing sounds more like one foot into ultra-orthodoxy; and this is usually attended by a feeling that anyone to the left of them is heterodox. It ain’t necessarily so.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Allow me to contribute a series of random thoughts on this issue.

For many people, Latin represents a “dead language” which means that particular expressions do not change meaning. That Latin was the language of the people when it started being used is irrelevant to this discussion since, at this time, it is not. It is not that Latin is a more holy or more reverent language, it’s that it has a fixed meaning that is not subject to the whims and vagaries of linguistic usage.

Objection to the use of English (or any other vernacular tongue) is not the language per se but, rather, the fact that, as a living language, it is subject to change. Because of that, the translation does not always carry the same meaning. This, of course, overlooks the fact that it is impossible to translate from one language to another and carry both the meaning and the connotation. It simply isn’t possible. Compounding this, I think, is the rather banal translation of the Missal into English by ICEL.

This latter condemnation does not take into consideration, however, the fact that ICEL was trying to provide a single English translation that would work every place in the world where English was spoken. As Winston Churchill once observed with regard to England and the United States: “We are separated by a common langauge.” During my visits to Great Britan it was always humerous to note sign saying: “English spoken, American understood”

Finally, as has been noted, this issue boils down to one of emotion. That is not to say that it is unimportant since emotion is a critical part of what makes us human. As an Eastern deacon we celebrate the Divine Liturgy in Arabic, English and a little Greek (most notably the Kyrie and the Trisagion prayer which includes the deacon’s directive to the people “Dynamis” (with more power) during the Trisagion. Are any of these languages better than the others for celebrating the Liturgy? No, of course not – any more than Latin is better or more appropriate.

Deacon Ed

 

[deogratias]

This is just an opinion.

Latin is still the language of the church and of most of its historical documents. The Tridentine Liturgy was traditionally celebrated primarily in Latin.

Part of the attraction to the TLM for many is the beauty and the mystery. Part of the beauty is the language.

Opera fans would understand that while we can read subtitles of LaTraviata the lyricism of its being sung in Italian contributes to its beauty and if those translations we see on the screen were actually sung, something of the beauty would be lost. So it is with the Mass - we hear the Latin, we read the English (or whatever country you are in).

Think also of watching a John Wayne Movie in Japan - with dubbed in words - just not quite the same impact.

This is not the whole reason many prefer the TLM, but it is why some prefer it to be in Latin.

Originally the Latin was the “universal” language also - and no matter where in the world you might be, you probably would hear the Mass the same way.

 

[otm]

deogratias:

This is just an opinion…

Part of the attraction to the TLM for many is the beauty and the mystery. Part of the beauty is the language.

Opera fans would understand that while we can read subtitles of LaTraviata the lyricism of its being sung in Italian contributes to its beauty and if those translations we see on the screen were actually sung, something of the beauty would be lost. So it is with the Mass - we hear the Latin, we read the English (or whatever country you are in).

I think you have expressed something that I have thought for some time, and that is that much of the to-do about the Tridintine Mass is about an emotional fix, which is being tied to a religious fix. The whole issue gets down to “feelings”. Worship is an act of the will, but what I hear implies, if not out right states, that people who are gaga over the Tridintine rite that people “feel” that this is much more holy, more worshipful, more… just read the threads. I am not without some experience of the traditional Latin Mass; I was an altar server when Pius 12 was Pope. I’ve seen the good, the bad, and the ugly. And I think the best thing that ever happened is that we got beyond a museum piece which people watched, back to a liturgy that people can participate in directly. I’ve taken Latin in High school and college, but it was taught, in the main, as a translated language. And while there are a few spots where Latin is taught as a spoken language, they are still a miniscule part. I have attended Mass in other languages. I don’t go to Mass because it is an “obligation”; I go to worship. And that is simply easier in a language I speak.

deogratias:

Think also of watching a John Wayne Movie in Japan - with dubbed in words - just not quite the same impact.

I did it one better: I watched Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid in English, with Chinese subtitles. In a number of parts, I was the only one laughing; in others, I was the only one not laughing…
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While I like a little of opera, I really don’t much care for it. Call me uncultured or whatever you will. At least, with an operetta in English, I can understand what is going on. I enjoyed the Phantom of the Opera and Les Miserables; put them in a language I don’t speak, and they are
a yawner.

We have had Schola Cantora, a dynamite choir, in Portland; and I took the RCIA group to Mass Saturday evening. Palistrina is gorgeous. But I went to Mass the next day (Sunday) as I felt that I had been at a concert, not a Mass. I really do not like that at all. The response out of several members was “why can’t Mass be like that always?” and the more I questioned, the more I was convinced that they “felt” a very strong religious emotion. The danger? What are you left with, when you don’t “feel” the Mass?

I love listening to Gregorian Chant well done; and most groups can’t do it even passibly well. One of the worst examples I’ve heard was on EWTN for some funeral Mass; the microphone caught the individuals who were off key; the dynamics would have made a high school choral group cringe; and it is not meant for two (what is the word, registers? baritone and tenor?) voices. I have been to some beautiful Tridentine Solemn High Masses, and some beautiful Ordo Missae Masses, both with pomp and ceremony. It goes much more to how it is celebrated rather than which one is celebrated. And I wouldn’t go back for all the tea in China…

 

[deogratias]

I think you have expressed something that I have thought for some time, and that is that much of the to-do about the Tridintine Mass is about an emotional fix, which is being tied to a religious fix.

Perhaps - but the same could be said about those who like to worship loudly with hand clapping and gospel singing or those who “feel” active (verbal) participation is the only way to worship or those who “feel” a sense of community only by touching.

I don’t think we can truly separate “feelings” from our religiosity although choosing the right religion may be based on our intelligence. What one sees as “emotionalism or feelings” another may consider to be a “spiritual connection”.

That said, the Mass is much more to me that just a “feeling” and more than just “Latin”, but it is a part of it for me and I honor and respect that it may not be so for others.

 

[FenianMan]

This is a very curious discussion. For the first time I’ve seen Traditionalists lumped into the same category as the hand-clappy hippies. I think that the difference lies in this; while the Traditionalists, at least the more honest ones, will acknowledge an emotional component to their attraction to the old liturgy, their attachment is, generally, not an emotion. There is a distinct difference. The question arises, “If the Mass solicts certain religious feelings or emotions, then what happens when the emotions or feelings are gone?” No traditionalist worth is salt is going to conceive of not going to Mass, unless of course he actualy believes that the Paulin rite is invalid (and those arguments are in fact much more sophisticated then, “I want my Latin now,” even if they are flawed), no the Traditionalist would be far to concerned about falling into mortal sin by missing Mass. Most, though thankfully not all, raised on the Pauline Rite simply wouldn’t know what a mortal sin was, and if they did, they probably wouldn’t think that missing Mass qualifies. I think that it’s a great sin of presumption to assume that because some younger priests are finding themselves better suited to ancient liturgy that they don’t “get” their priesthood. This is the quintessential “both/and,” and used in it’s proper context. Don’t forget, these men are very educated, having at least six or eight years in seminary formation. This is where a legitimate variety of opinions can and ought to form, and that should be respected. There is one more problem that needs addressed, however, and that is the radical equivocation that has been made between the Mass as meal and the Mass as sacrifice. The Mass is both meal and sacrifice, as countless Church documents tell us, but it is *essentially *a sacrifice. Holy Mother Church does not employ such language lightly. To say such is a profoundly bold statement and one which separates us, even from many Anglicans that would, in this forum, be perceived as “hyper-reverent.” Further, in terms of the experiential reality of the Mass, which is easier to understand, the meal or the sacrifice. People are eating at Mass, that clearly indicates that it is in fact a meal, but what distinguishes it as a sacrifice? That’s where the mystery and the transcendence that was so clearly a part of the experience (and language) of the former rite comes in. The concept of the Catholic “both/and” instead of the Protestant “either/or” must never be used to mask distinctions, let alone deny fundamental truths.

 

[kmktexas]

What is so important about Latin?

Latin is the Liturgical language of the Latin rite of the Church.

As a Byzantine Catholic I find the issue of language odd. Our Divine Liturgy has always been done in the vernacular.

And yet each of the Eastern rite churches has its own liturgical language as well. I found an interesting compilation at this site.

cuf.org/member/easterncatholicchurches.pdf

For most tradaitional (small t) Catholics, there is some distress at the abandonment of the Liturgical language of the Church (Latin) in favor of a Mass that is said entirely in a vernacular language that may or may not be understood by members of the congregation.

I am currently attending Mass in Spanish because of an assignment in South America. I don’t understand the language and cannot participate - as I could if parts were in Latin. I can still follow along and know when the basic parts of the Mass are happening.

Vatican II did not even suggest that Latin be left out of the Mass entirely but encouraged more use of the vernacular if it would have beneficial pastoral purpose. English was used in the US at Mass long before the introduction of the new Mass. It’s the overuse of the vernacular and the fact that most Catholics now don’t even know basic responses in Latin that many traditionalists rebel at.

Is it better to have the majority of people in the pews not understanding what is being said? Is it better for those who can afford English-Latin Missals to read along instead of pray?

If someone who was brought up in the Church after the introduction of the new Mass were to attend a TLM without a Missal, he/she might not understand much. They would need a Missal to follow along and most TLM churches provide them (so "affording one isn’t really an issue). Before the change, most people didn’t need a Missal to follow the Mass but many liked to use one. It is the same today. Most Catholics knew what they were praying in Latin even if they couldn’t translate it word-for-word.

Another issue with the vernacular is that English, for example, is an evolving language. One of the reasons it takes so long to address translation issues is that English usage is different in the US, UK, Australia etc. Same problem with Spanish. Ecclesial Latin is the same where ever it is used.

 

[deogratias]

This is a very curious discussion. For the first time I’ve seen Traditionalists lumped into the same category as the hand-clappy hippies

Very curious too that you would** assume** that all those who clap hands at Mass are hippies and I am sure many a charismatic would be surprised by your assessment as well - LOL

Oh I am not a hand clapper by any means and much prefer and attend an Indult TLM but am continuously amazed by the assumptions made about anyone that deviates from one’s own worship.

Most, though thankfully not all, raised on the Pauline Rite simply wouldn’t know what a mortal sin was, and if they did, they probably wouldn’t think that missing Mass qualifies

Don’t you think this might be a little presumptive and generalized - we can’t really know if it is most or some because we have not talked to every man in eveyr pew in every parish in the world.

.** I think that it’s a great sin of presumption to assume**

I agree - can you see that you have done the same thing?

 

[FenianMan]

Don’t you think this might be a little presumptive and generalized - we can’t really know if it is most or some because we have not talked to every man in eveyr pew in every parish in the world.

I agree - can you see that you have done the same thing?
I can and do, and I now stand happily corrected. Thanks be that our God has given us each other to both praise and admonish! My point still stands, though, and the frustration with which the invective was written is real. It is simply unfair to associate an emotional component with the thing being determined solely by emotion. The bottom line is, and our Church would still hold this, that there are simply some ways of worshipping that are better than others. There are also certain ways of worshipping that are more suited to one culture than another (i.e. clapping in Africa). There *is *an emotional component to all worship, even if worship itself is primarily a movment of the will. Even worship during a “dry spell” is emotionally affected, if by the dryness itself. However a simultaneously emotional and intellectual reaction to an act of worship, much like what many neo-cons like myself have when attending the former liturgy, is a good indicator that it might be better than what we’ve grown accustomed to.

 

[Volodymyr]

kmktexas:

Latin is the Liturgical language of the Latin rite of the Church.

And yet each of the Eastern rite churches has its own liturgical language as well. I found an interesting compilation at this site.

cuf.org/member/easterncatholicchurches.pdf

Perhaps I misunderstood what religion is Mr. Byzantine Catholic. But in all churches in Zakarpatia (where American Byzantine Catholics come from), Ukraine, Russia there is a special, beautiful language used in liturgy which has been since the 9th century - Church Slavonic. This language is the gift of Sts Kirill and Mefodii to the Slavic Church. In fact only has it been allowed to be Ukrainian during liturgy since 1986 by Ukrainian Hreko-Catholic Church and Ukrainian Orthodox, autocephalous and later by Kyiv Patriarchate. Many reasons has been written by “Traditionalist (ordinary)” Orthodox and Hreko-catholics in favor of tserkovnoslavyanska mova (Church Slavonic language). These reasons very similar to Latin Catholics: tradition, better example of mystical, more beautiful and powerful than contemporary Ukrainian or Russian. Please do not be so hard on Latin Catholics, perhaps you should have your priest offer liturgy not in Ukrainian (or not in English or whatever contemporary language) but in the beautiful language for which Tchaikovsky, Bartnyansky and others wrote such wonderful music.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Okay, time to jump back in. *Some *of the Eastern Catholic Churches have a liturgical langauge. Volodymyr mentions Old Church Slavonic as the liturgical language of the Russian Catholic Church. It is also used in the Ruthenian Church and some of the Ukranian Churches. However, in the United States the Russian Catholic Churches (there are three plus one mission) don’t use Slavonic except for a few specific salutations. The Maronites use Syriac which is a modern-day Aramaic for their liturgies. Melkites use Arabic and English (at least, in the United States) because most Melkites are of Arabic origin and speak Arabic and English in their everyday life. Thus, the liturgical language is also the vernacular.

Having a particular liturgical language does, in fact, add a special sense to the liturgy, especially if that is the only place one encounters that language. It then becomes a “sacred language” whose use is reserved to a particular time and place.

For me, however, Latin was also the language I used to read Caesar’s Gaelic Wars, to read Pliny and Cicero. I read Homer in Greek, so Greek is not, for me, a liturgical language.

However, when we start talking about a “sacred language” we are talking about emotions since, in point of fact, the “sense of the sacred” derives from an emotion and stimulates certain responses. This is not bad since that emotional response is held in the right context.

When one is deprived of this emotional stimulation the liturgy can seem the poorer for it. One might be tempted to say, then, that there is a need for additional catechesis – and this is always true. At the same time we need to be aware that our Catholic faith is not a “head faith” – memorize answers, engage the intellect, and we’re okay. It is, rather, a holistic faith that should be able to engage all of us: emotion, intellect, hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting, feeling – the whole person present at worship. That does require catechesis, but it also requires a self-surrender to the liturgy.

Deacon Ed

 

[deogratias]

much like what many neo-cons like myself have when attending the former liturgy, is a good indicator that it might be better than what we’ve grown accustomed to.

Help - whatza neocon -

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Fr Deacon Ed,

While you raise a good point on the issue of “sacred language”. I question the effectiveness of a “sacred leanguage” the the majority of people do not know.

Before the reform, the laity had no function at the Mass. They were present but the priest “said” Mass for them, they did not participate. They did other devotions, other prayers, while the Mass was going on. The ringing of the bells let them know when to “pay attention”. Let them know something important was occuring.

Now today, in the Mass, as in the Divine Liturgy, the laity participates.

The comment by Volodymyr is just nonsense. Old Church Slavonic is a slavonic language, they are simular enough that one can follow the Litrugy. At least this is what I have been told by speakers of Ukranian and Russian.

I for one do not buy into the “sacred language” arguement.

As for the comment above about the article I read and the priest’s comments on the “changed” theology. I do not by this. As these priests seem to deny the Mass, to do so is also a change in theoglogy. It denies the supremecy of the Church. It removes the right from the Church to reform its Liturgy. This is not the first time there has been liturgical reform in the Church.

 

[Volodymyr]

Old church slavonic is a southern slavic language of great historical significance. Church slavonic used in Churches today is a different somewhat simplified language. Mr. Byzantine-Catholic who has probably not studied Church slavonic has been told it can be “followed” by speakers of Russian and Ukrainian. Just like Latin can be followed by those who know some French or Italian I think.

But Church slavonic expresses concepts difficult to express in modern Russian or Ukrainian. It is more precise. For instance in Church slavonic there are both simple and complex future forms as well as aorist, imperfect, perfect and pluskamperfect past forms. These differences in grammar can be very important to meaning of Holy Scripture but a modern Ukrainian would not know difference between necl jesm’ and nesl bjakh (I carried) or what is my esma (we (two) are) without asking. Thus Church slavonic can achieve in few words precision not available to modern languages. This precision is for those who need to know, but can be “followed”. Church Slavonic is also more elevated than spoken contemporary language. The fact that Church slavonic (or Latin I think) is not completely understandable to ordinary Christian is also a teaching moment - Christians do not really understand Divine Essence. If Our Lord and God Jesus Christ says, I am way, truth and life, I might be misled to think I understand since I understand the words. But if Lord says, “Az ecm’ put’ i istina i zhivot”, then I have to stop to realize perhaps I do not understand God so well. In Church slavonic is how our ancestors have heard about God for 1,000 years. For many it is important to maintain continuity with Church that has gone before. Can you listen to Rachmaninov’s Vechernya in English or Russian or Swahili but the beauty is lost. Better to listen in Church slavonic and read a translation in prayer book.

Fine for those who like Mr. Byzantine Catholic do not like liturgical languages. But for those who do, we are not ridiculous.