Language

[Ray_Marshall]

ByzCath:

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.

This is a good point. People when they start going to Tridentine Masses will be shocked to find out that for much of the Mass, they won’t even be able to hear what the priest is saying because he says it to himself and to the servers.

I attended an indult Mass last winter and was reminded of why I wasn’t crazy about the Latin Mass, even though I was an altar boy and knew better than most what was going on.

 

[Iohannes]

Lets make this clear:

LATIN is not the main issue.

If they wanted more vernacular why could they not just stick with the 1965 Missal or better yet, a vernacular version of the 1962 Missal?

 

[Iohannes]

The 1962 Missal does not have to be celebrated in Latin, there was permission for Slavonic and Greek, infact once in a while, they did celebrate the Tridentine Mass in Greek in Rome.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

ByzCath:

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.

While you may not “buy into” the idea of a sacred language, it is a very real phenomenon in the lives of some worshipers (including myself). While it may only be an emotional attachment, the Tantum Ergo is far more powerful a hymn for me than any vernacular hymn, even though I couldn’t render a line-for-line translation of it.

If a reliance on emotion disqualifies a preference, the principle should fairly be applied to vocal participation as well. While many people tout the increase in “lay participation” in the rite of Paul VI they fail to see that the change is qualitative, not quantitative. Silently trying to offer your prayer along with the prayers of the priest is just as much participation in the Mass as saying the Confiteor for yourself instead of having it done by the altar boy. In fact, John Paul II has emphasized the importance of the “active participation” of silence. From my experience, a firm grounding in the teachings of the Church and a prayerful disposition have much more to do with one’s ability to participate in Mass than “having a part to play” ever could.

If you want to see changes in theology, all you have to do is read the rite of Pius V and compare it to the rite of Paul VI. While it is more sacrificial in emphasis, the Tridentine rite is also very sacerdotal, emphasizing the unique role of the ordained priesthood far beyond what is done in the current ordo.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Andreas Hofer:

While you may not “buy into” the idea of a sacred language, it is a very real phenomenon in the lives of some worshipers (including myself). While it may only be an emotional attachment, the Tantum Ergo is far more powerful a hymn for me than any vernacular hymn, even though I couldn’t render a line-for-line translation of it.

That is just the point. For those who do not know Latin, it will mean nothing.

Why I do not buy into the argument is for the very fact that it is nothing more than an emotional attachment. This has nothing to do with theology.

I also think that the Liturgy is much better in the vernacular as this allows the participation of the laity. As I said earlier, the laity did not participate with the Trad Latin Mass.

Now it has been said that it would have been better to stick with the 1965 missal, or a vernacular translation of the 1962 missal.

I have never seen a Mass using the 1965 missal but a friend of mine has brough this up. So maybe it would have been better.

As for the other, a vernacular translation of the 1962 missal, I do not see how that could work with the way the Mass was then, that is that the priest “said” Mass for everyone, that they did not participate.

 

[IrenkaJMJ]

ByzCath:

That is just the point. For those who do not know Latin, it will mean nothing.

Why I do not buy into the argument is for the very fact that it is nothing more than an emotional attachment. This has nothing to do with theology.

I also think that the Liturgy is much better in the vernacular as this allows the participation of the laity. As I said earlier, the laity did not participate with the Trad Latin Mass.

Now it has been said that it would have been better to stick with the 1965 missal, or a vernacular translation of the 1962 missal.

I have never seen a Mass using the 1965 missal but a friend of mine has brough this up. So maybe it would have been better.

As for the other, a vernacular translation of the 1962 missal, I do not see how that could work with the way the Mass was then, that is that the priest “said” Mass for everyone, that they did not participate.

Do you think it’s fair to make such a blanket statement that “the laity did not participate with the Trad Latin Mass”? It’s understandable that you cannot imagine participating at a Latin Mass, but maybe your definition of participation is too narrow.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

IrenkaJMJ:

Do you think it’s fair to make such a blanket statement that “the laity did not participate with the Trad Latin Mass”? It’s understandable that you cannot imagine participating at a Latin Mass, but maybe your definition of participation is too narrow.

No it is not as it is historical fact that the priest “said” the Mass for the laity and all responses came from those serveing with him. The laity prayed other prayers/devotions during the Mass. The bells were rung to let the laity know that something important was going on.

That is a fact of the Mass before Vatican II. Now with the Trad Latin Mass today, some of the responses of the altar servers were given to the laity (I think) but that is not how the Trad Latin Mass was deveolped.

 

[drforjc]

David, your response dodges Irenka’s point. You restate that the priest spoke aloud and the servers made the responses. So far so good, but then she rightly states that participation can encompass more than mere verbal participation. She is, I think, making the point that one can “participate” by their internal attention and devotion as well as by verbally saying the responses.

OTOH, I have often “participated” by YOUR definition at N.O. masses without interior attention. The vernacular responses are so familiar to me that I can recite them correctly although my mind is totally on some other topic.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

drforjc:

David, your response dodges Irenka’s point. You restate that the priest spoke aloud and the servers made the responses. So far so good, but then she rightly states that participation can encompass more than mere verbal participation. She is, I think, making the point that one can “participate” by their internal attention and devotion as well as by verbally saying the responses.

OTOH, I have often “participated” by YOUR definition at N.O. masses without interior attention. The vernacular responses are so familiar to me that I can recite them correctly although my mind is totally on some other topic.

I did not dodge any point.

One must look at the Mass and its structure and intent.

The Trad Latin Mass is set up so that it is the priest “Saying” the Mass for the laity. The laity do not participate. It was not designed for them to participate in.

Now if you and Irenka want to make the point that one can participate in the Trad Latin Mass as a fan participates in a football game, then I can agree but the word participate does not really say what the fan is doing.

If you have problems participating in the Mass because the responses are in the venacular and so familiar, then I say that is an issue you must work though but it is better than those who do not participate in the Trad Latin Mass becuase it is done in a foreign language.

 

[delorean_boy]

I rarely post here, but i thought id chime in on this one.

I attended my first latin mass yesterday.
Byzcath, i dont understand a couple of things you say about the mass.
First participation. I really dont understand how you can say this. I participated yesterday as much as i do at the NO mass. I sang with the choir, and chanted all the responses, just like everyone else. it was no less meaningful just because i couldnt hear some of the prayers the priest was saying on our behalf.
Next, you say that if someone cant understand latin, the prayers have no meaning for them. UM all i can say is speak for yourself! i cant understand a word of latin, and this mass almost brought me to tears it was so beautiful.( im a 22 year old man, so that is rare, lol) sure i didnt understand the exact meaning of each word, but i knew the content of the prayers, so i dont understand how the laguage can make it meaningless.

Just as a side note---- This was the most beautiful mass i have ever seen. It acually felt as if part of heaven was there in the church. it was amazing, thats the only way i can describe it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

delorean_boy:

I rarely post here, but i thought id chime in on this one.

I attended my first latin mass yesterday.
Byzcath, i dont understand a couple of things you say about the mass.
First participation. I really dont understand how you can say this. I participated yesterday as much as i do at the NO mass. I sang with the choir, and chanted all the responses, just like everyone else. it was no less meaningful just because i couldnt hear some of the prayers the priest was saying on our behalf.

I am speaking about the Trad Latin Mass pre-Vatican II.

It was modified to add responses for the laity, those responses were originally for the altar servers and when the choir is doing gregorian chant it is very hard for the laity to “sing” along with that.

I am trying to make a point that those who want a retrun to the Trad Latin Mass do not want to really return to what the Trad Latin Mass was, but what it has become.

Next, you say that if someone cant understand latin, the prayers have no meaning for them. UM all i can say is speak for yourself! i cant understand a word of latin, and this mass almost brought me to tears it was so beautiful.( im a 22 year old man, so that is rare, lol) sure i didnt understand the exact meaning of each word, but i knew the content of the prayers, so i dont understand how the laguage can make it meaningless.

But knowing the content of the prayers is not the same thing as praying along and participating. It is like watching a movie in a foreign language but knowing the story.

I never said that it makes it meaningless, I said it makes it so you can not really participate.

Just as a side note---- This was the most beautiful mass i have ever seen. It acually felt as if part of heaven was there in the church. it was amazing, thats the only way i can describe it.

This is how I feel at the Divine Liturgy, which uses the venacular. I also felt this way at a Mass (not Trad Latin Mass) that was done faithfully, that is followed the rubrics (no abuses). Language has nothing to do with it, that is my main point.

 

[IrenkaJMJ]

ByzCath:

I am speaking about the Trad Latin Mass pre-Vatican II.

It was modified to add responses for the laity, those responses were originally for the altar servers and when the choir is doing gregorian chant it is very hard for the laity to “sing” along with that.

I am trying to make a point that those who want a retrun to the Trad Latin Mass do not want to really return to what the Trad Latin Mass was, but what it has become.

But knowing the content of the prayers is not the same thing as praying along and participating. It is like watching a movie in a foreign language but knowing the story.

I never said that it makes it meaningless, I said it makes it so you can not really participate.

This is how I feel at the Divine Liturgy, which uses the venacular. I also felt this way at a Mass (not Trad Latin Mass) that was done faithfully, that is followed the rubrics (no abuses). Language has nothing to do with it, that is my main point.

It still depends upon one’s definition of participation, which in your case seems extremely narrow. Obviously you are accustomed to the vernacular and can’t concieve of any other way of participating at Mass. But maybe others can.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

IrenkaJMJ:

It still depends upon one’s definition of participation, which in your case seems extremely narrow. Obviously you are accustomed to the vernacular and can’t concieve of any other way of participating at Mass. But maybe others can.

Actually I am accustomed to understanding what is being said and can not concieve of participating in something where I do not understand the language.

How can one tell if abuses are happening when one does not know what is being said?

What I am talking about here is the idea that many of those Trad Latin Catholics put forward, that anything but Latin is wrong.

To say that you prefer the Trad Latin Mass is ok and I support that as it is valid withing the Church today, but it may not always be so. But to try and say that Latin is the only way is wrong, again becuase this is what the Church says.

Some people seem to think that Latin is a Holy Language. There is no such thing. That is all I am trying to say.

 

[IrenkaJMJ]

ByzCath:

Actually I am accustomed to understanding what is being said and can not concieve of participating in something where I do not understand the language.

How can one tell if abuses are happening when one does not know what is being said?

What I am talking about here is the idea that many of those Trad Latin Catholics put forward, that anything but Latin is wrong.

To say that you prefer the Trad Latin Mass is ok and I support that as it is valid withing the Church today, but it may not always be so. But to try and say that Latin is the only way is wrong, again becuase this is what the Church says.

Some people seem to think that Latin is a Holy Language. There is no such thing. That is all I am trying to say.

No, I don’t think Latin is the only way to go. I’m sorry if I gave you that impression. And yes, in my area, raising 5 children, I do prefer and attend the Trad Latin Mass. I believe Latin should used more during NO Masses, i.e. : Mass on EWTN. My point is that participation can be fully implemented at a Trad Latin Mass. It’s just a different kind of participation.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

ByzCath,
As other have pointed out, and as I already stated in the part of my post you didn’t quote, many people, including the Holy Father, believe that participation encompasses more than just saying responses. If John Paul II, who prays the Novus Ordo rather often, believes that one can actively participate by being silent, I’m inclined to believe that the traditional notion of participation goes beyond saying lines in the vernacular.

 

[kmktexas]

Quote:
Originally Posted by delorean_boy
I rarely post here, but i thought id chime in on this one.

I attended my first latin mass yesterday.
Byzcath, i dont understand a couple of things you say about the mass.
First participation. I really dont understand how you can say this. I participated yesterday as much as i do at the NO mass. I sang with the choir, and chanted all the responses, just like everyone else. it was no less meaningful just because i couldnt hear some of the prayers the priest was saying on our behalf.

I am speaking about the Trad Latin Mass pre-Vatican II.

It was modified to add responses for the laity, those responses were originally for the altar servers and when the choir is doing gregorian chant it is very hard for the laity to “sing” along with that.

I am trying to make a point that those who want a retrun to the Trad Latin Mass do not want to really return to what the Trad Latin Mass was, but what it has become.

David,

If you are trying to say that the responses by the laity were added after V2 then you have your chronology wrong. The “dialog” Mass was a change made with the Missal of 1962 (or even before). Many churches that today have the indult for the TLM use the dialog Mass or say High Masses where there is more chant and fewer of the prayers said only by the servers.

This is one reason IMHO that there was not huge resistance to the Missal of 1965. The dialog and more active participation were already in place in many parishes with the dialog Mass. My first TLM was not a dialog Mass and it was culture shock. I have been told that the dialog Mass is more the norm for Indult Masses and probably was becoming the norm, even with the Missal of 1962.

I don’t see any real difference in the amount of participation between a dialog Mass said according to the Missal of 1962 and the so-called Novus Ordo Mass.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

kmktexas:

David,

If you are trying to say that the responses by the laity were added after V2 then you have your chronology wrong. The “dialog” Mass was a change made with the Missal of 1962 (or even before). Many churches that today have the indult for the TLM use the dialog Mass or say High Masses where there is more chant and fewer of the prayers said only by the servers.

This is one reason IMHO that there was not huge resistance to the Missal of 1965. The dialog and more active participation were already in place in many parishes with the dialog Mass. My first TLM was not a dialog Mass and it was culture shock. I have been told that the dialog Mass is more the norm for Indult Masses and probably was becoming the norm, even with the Missal of 1962.

I don’t see any real difference in the amount of participation between a dialog Mass said according to the Missal of 1962 and the so-called Novus Ordo Mass.

Yes the responses were added with the 1962 Missal. It was all for the reform of the Liturgy which happened around the time of Vatican II.

 

[kmktexas]

My point being that the 1962 Missal is the one that the indult is for and the one that the “Traditionalists” asked for.

So when you say:

I am trying to make a point that those who want a retrun to the Trad Latin Mass do not want to really return to what the Trad Latin Mass was, but what it has become.

this is somewhat misleading. TLM adherents ** do ** really want to return to the way the TL Mass was.

 

[otm]

Andreas Hofer:

. Silently trying to offer your prayer along with the prayers of the priest is just as much participation in the Mass as saying the Confiteor for yourself instead of having it done by the altar boy.

I respectfully disagree. Saying the prayers in English while it is being said in Latin is akin to going to an opera or movie in a foreign language shich you do not know. You can read the subtitles while it is being sung, or the movie is playing, but you most definitely do not have the same experience as you would if it was said in a language you understood. And the point carries further, because you may have the Confetior memorized, but the rest of the Mass you don’t; so you either sit there having no idea what is being said, or read a translation as it is being said. Net net: the opera. You may understand the vocal dynamics of the singers; you may appreciate the melody, but you don’t know what the aside was that the alto just made…
Andreas Hofer:

In fact, John Paul II has emphasized the importance of the “active participation” of silence.

Let’s not take things out of context. The GIRM also talks about silence, but it has nothing to do with Mass in Latin; it has to do with certain times during the Mass to reflect (e.g. during the readins).

Again, I disagree. I was an altar server prior to Vatican 2; The change was immense and powerful. and it is so much more than “playing a part”.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

kmktexas:

My point being that the 1962 Missal is the one that the indult is for and the one that the “Traditionalists” asked for.

So when you say:

I am trying to make a point that those who want a retrun to the Trad Latin Mass do not want to really return to what the Trad Latin Mass was, but what it has become.

this is somewhat misleading. TLM adherents **do **really want to return to the way the TL Mass was.

While this is true, this is not the impression the Trad Catholics put forward.

They make comments and spread the idea that the 1962 Missal is the same as the Latin Mass as it was with St Pius X.