Latin (and Greek) Mass Parts

[OraLabora]

I’ve never personally witnessed an ad orientem, Latin OF Mass. Got me thinking, though-- if you’re going to celebrate the OF ad orientem and in Latin… why not just have the EF?

There’s more to the EF vs OF than the language and the orientation of the celebrant. The OF was intended to be celebrated in Latin, as per Sacrosanctum Concilium with the vernacular allowed where needed; instead what we have is the other way around. In the abbey where I heard the OF celebrated ad orientem (and in Latin), the altar arrangement did not lend itself to versus populum celebration.

As also pointed out the calendars are different.

The abbey where I heard this was Monte Cassino, in Italy.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

There’s more to the EF vs OF than the language and the orientation of the celebrant. The OF was intended to be celebrated in Latin, as per Sacrosanctum Concilium with the vernacular allowed where needed; instead what we have is the other way around. In the abbey where I heard the OF celebrated ad orientem (and in Latin), the altar arrangement did not lend itself to versus populum celebration.

As also pointed out the calendars are different.

The abbey where I heard this was Monte Cassino, in Italy.

To quote one of my favorite movies: “Thank you, for summing that up.”

I learned this last summer at Ave Maria in Florida. They occasionally do the OF in Latin and ad orientum. The other things I learned about the EF came from time spent in Omaha, Nebraska. So it’s nice to know things are actually being taught the same way across the world.

 

[Cat]

Personally, I love hearing the Kyrie eleison, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei chanted in Latin (and Greek for the Kyrie). To me, they feel slightly more reverant (a lot more reverent in the case of the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei) than their English counterparts, and I also feel more connected to the rich history of our Church when the Kyrie is sung rather than just hearing “Lord, have mercy.”

Thoughts?

OK. Here are some thoughts:

You “feel” that Latin and Greek are “slightly more reverent.”

I don’t feel that at all. I “feel” that Latin and Greek are more theatrical than the vernacular and that many of the traditions are akin to “choreography.”

Are both of us right?

How much importance should be placed on “feelings” in the Mass?

What happens when two people have such different “feelings” about the use of Latin/Greek in the Mass? How is this to be resolved?

 

[ProVobis]

What happens when two people have such different “feelings” about the use of Latin/Greek in the Mass? How is this to be resolved?

It was hoped that the Vatican II documents would resolve these issues. Or Jubilate Deo which has been almost universally ignored or rejected.

.

 

[Cat]

It was hoped that the Vatican II documents would resolve these issues. Or Jubilate Deo which has been almost universally ignored or rejected.

.

And all the many documents approving the vernacular in the OF Mass are also being ignored.

There is no hierarchy of superiority of Mass forms. The OF and the EF are equal, and the OF in the vernacular is equal to the OF in Latin.

What Catholics have to recognize is that while they have every right to recognize their “feelings” about the Masses and try to find a Mass that pleases their “feelings,” they cannot judge the reverence of efficacy of the Mass according to their personal “feelings”.

The most dull Mass, by “feelings” standard, is just as efficacious as the most beautifully-presented Mass (in either form). A Mass in the homeliest of the vernaculars (whatever that is) still accomplishes its purpose. Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is present in any valid Mass.

How wonderful! Christ Truly Present, and available to us in the Blessed Sacrament!

 

[ProVobis]

And all the many documents approving the vernacular in the OF Mass are also being ignored.

I disagree. We’ve always had some vernacular in the Mass, if only the sermon. Now the entire thing. And amplified, to boot.

Many feel it shouldn’t be Latin VERSUS English, as you seem to make it, but Latin AND English.

In his book, “Story of a World Language - Latin” the author observes that through its long 2500-yr history, where Latin does well, the vernacular does well. And his whole book gives examples.

As for equality, I don’t think so. In his apostolic constitution, St. John XXIII writes

Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all…

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."7
…
Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority.

And English, Spanish, etc. ARE MUTABLE, thus deficient from the standpoint of at least TWO Popes.

 

[OraLabora]

OK. Here are some thoughts:

You “feel” that Latin and Greek are “slightly more reverent.”

I don’t feel that at all. I “feel” that Latin and Greek are more theatrical than the vernacular and that many of the traditions are akin to “choreography.”

Are both of us right?

How much importance should be placed on “feelings” in the Mass?

What happens when two people have such different “feelings” about the use of Latin/Greek in the Mass? How is this to be resolved?

I’m reading a great book right now, loaned to me by the prior of our abbey, L’Intelligence de la liturgie (The Intelligence of the Liturgy).

I’m only partway through but the message I am getting is that the liturgy is something to be experienced corporally, that is through our senses, rather than intellectually. That is part of the mystery. Hence the use of chant, incense, bells, processions and other ritual gestures. Rather than “choreography” I see it more as ritual. The book makes the point that ritual is part of the human experience; we all have rituals, from the way we celebrate marriage, birth and death (quite apart from any religious tradition) to the way we get up, eat, wash and get dressed in the morning.

Rituals bring a sense of order, security and great comfort to humans. Yes they play on “feelings”, and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

A couple of years ago, my mother-in-law passed on. She was a Pentecostal so we traveled to the West Coast for her funeral. My wife is an Evangelical Anglican for whom liturgy holds no special place in her heart.

But she commented to me that she found the absence of any form of ritual from her mother’s service, disturbing and realized that ritual, order, liturgy, bring a sense of familiarity and comfort to the bereaved. It was just an unstructured service with readings, some kind of sermon, hymns here and there, and some eulogies from her children, more or less on the pastor’s whim.

I found it really disturbing, and so did my wife. But it was her church so we had to go with her wishes.

Somewhere there has to be a balance: a liturgy that one can experience with the senses, that pulls us into the mystery we are celebrating, where we can feel, hear, smell and of course taste God, with all our senses.

I like the Latin, especially for the propers and ordinary. I like the readings though, in the vernacular because for those I have to concentrate to really understand the message (I also always read the passages before Mass so I’m already familiar with them; at the abbey, they are always chanted). However my mother tongue is French and basic Church Latin is no major obstacle for me due to the similarity with French. I realize it isn’t everyone’s taste though, and have no problems with the vernacular, provided it meets the goal of liturgy as a sensorial rather than intellectual experience. There are parts of the Mass to appeal to our intellect (the readings, the homily), but liturgy brings us, or should bring us, mystically into a higher plane that is a foretaste of the communion we’ll experience when we have the Beatific Vision after our earthly passage.

 

[wynd]

I like the Latin, especially for the propers and ordinary. I like the readings though, in the vernacular because for those I have to concentrate to really understand the message (I also always read the passages before Mass so I’m already familiar with them; at the abbey, they are always chanted). However my mother tongue is French and basic Church Latin is no major obstacle for me due to the similarity with French. I realize it isn’t everyone’s taste though, and have no problems with the vernacular, provided it meets the goal of liturgy as a sensorial rather than intellectual experience. There are parts of the Mass to appeal to our intellect (the readings, the homily), but liturgy brings us, or should bring us, mystically into a higher plane that is a foretaste of the communion we’ll experience when we have the Beatific Vision after our earthly passage.

What’s being overlooked is that there is, or should be, a strong catechetical aspect to the liturgy (and by that I mean the complete liturgical cycle, not just the Sunday Eucharistic service).Lex orandi, lex credendi and all that. It’s tough to form your faith if you can’t understand what’s being prayed.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I disagree. We’ve always had some vernacular in the Mass, if only the sermon. Now the entire thing. And amplified, to boot.

Many feel it shouldn’t be Latin VERSUS English, as you seem to make it, but Latin AND English.

In his book, “Story of a World Language - Latin” the author observes that through its long 2500-yr history, where Latin does well, the vernacular does well. And his whole book gives examples.

As for equality, I don’t think so. In his apostolic constitution, St. John XXIII writes

And English, Spanish, etc. ARE MUTABLE, thus deficient from the standpoint of at least TWO Popes.

There is no such thing as an immutable language.

 

[wynd]

There is no such thing as an immutable language.

Anyone else remember this? telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/1470486/Believe-me-father-the-Latin-for-hot-pants-is-brevissimae-bracae.html

 

[OraLabora]

What’s being overlooked is that there is, or should be, a strong catechetical aspect to the liturgy (and by that I mean the complete liturgical cycle, not just the Sunday Eucharistic service).Lex orandi, lex credendi and all that. It’s tough to form your faith if you can’t understand what’s being prayed.

The books premise is that the liturgy first, the understanding, second. The notion is that repetition of the liturgy eventually leads to understanding it. Nowhere is this more true, IMHO, in the Divine Office. If we look at how St. Benedict set up the monastic Divine Office, it becomes more clear.

Let us therefore consider how we ought to conduct ourselves
in sight of the Godhead and of His Angels,
and let us take part in the psalmody in such a way
that our mind may be in harmony with our voice.

(Rule of St. Benedict, Chapter 19)

The notion here is that our voice repeats the Office and the Psalms week after week, and eventually our mind comes into harmony with what we are saying (the liturgy).

We find this theme also in the General Instructions of the Liturgy of the Hours:

1. Mind and voice must be in harmony in a celebration that is worthy, attentive, and devout, if this prayer is to be made their own by those taking part and to be a source of devotion, a means of gaining God’s manifold grace, a deepening of personal prayer, and an incentive to the work of the apostolate.

and

1. Often the words of a psalm help us to pray with greater ease and fervor, whether in thanksgiving and joyful praise of God or in prayer for help in the throes of suffering. But difficulties may arise, especially when the psalm is not addressed directly to God. The psalmist is a poet and often addresses the people as he recalls Israel’s history; sometimes he addresses others, including subrational creatures. He even represents the words as being spoken by God himself and individual people, including, as in Ps 2, God’s enemies. This shows that a psalm is a different kind of prayer from a prayer or collect composed by the Church. Moreover, it is in keeping with the poetic and musical character of the psalms that they do not necessarily address God but are sung in God’s presence. Thus St. Benedict’s instruction: "Let us reflect on what it means to be in the sight of God and his angels, and let us so stand in his presence that our minds are in harmony with our voices."

Note the notion of liturgy as prayer rather than specifically as catechesis, though I suspect the catechesis comes eventually as we soak in the liturgy and let it penetrate our hearts. Most of the Liturgy of the Hours, as well as the Mass propers, are from scripture and of course are selected to highlight the day, feast or season.

In any event the book is one priest’s opinion; the author is Paul De Clerck who at the time he wrote it, was director of the Institut supérieur de liturgie at the Institut catholique de Paris, as well as professor at the Centre d’études théologiques et pastorales (Bruxelles). One assumes he knows something about the topic; it does resonate with me as it did with our prior.

 

[Sunbreak]

I think the Mass should be entirely in one language, not mixed up. It doesn’t make parts of the Mass holier than others to use another language for those sections.

 

[Cat]

I disagree. We’ve always had some vernacular in the Mass, if only the sermon. Now the entire thing. And amplified, to boot.

Many feel it shouldn’t be Latin VERSUS English, as you seem to make it, but Latin AND English.

In his book, “Story of a World Language - Latin” the author observes that through its long 2500-yr history, where Latin does well, the vernacular does well. And his whole book gives examples.

As for equality, I don’t think so. In his apostolic constitution, St. John XXIII writes

Was the Holy Father writing about the Mass in this commentary about Latin?

I have no objection at all to Latin as the Official Language of the Church. I think it makes sense when it comes to documents, research, etc. Also, so many of the ancient documents of the Church are in Latin, and therefore the study of Latin must continue if these documents are to remain relevant and useful.

But unless that portion of the commentary is out of context, I see no mention of the Mass.

 

[Cat]

I’m reading a great book right now, loaned to me by the prior of our abbey, L’Intelligence de la liturgie (The Intelligence of the Liturgy).

I’m only partway through but the message I am getting is that the liturgy is something to be experienced corporally, that is through our senses, rather than intellectually. That is part of the mystery. Hence the use of chant, incense, bells, processions and other ritual gestures. Rather than “choreography” I see it more as ritual. The book makes the point that ritual is part of the human experience; we all have rituals, from the way we celebrate marriage, birth and death (quite apart from any religious tradition) to the way we get up, eat, wash and get dressed in the morning.

Rituals bring a sense of order, security and great comfort to humans. Yes they play on “feelings”, and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

A couple of years ago, my mother-in-law passed on. She was a Pentecostal so we traveled to the West Coast for her funeral. My wife is an Evangelical Anglican for whom liturgy holds no special place in her heart.

But she commented to me that she found the absence of any form of ritual from her mother’s service, disturbing and realized that ritual, order, liturgy, bring a sense of familiarity and comfort to the bereaved. It was just an unstructured service with readings, some kind of sermon, hymns here and there, and some eulogies from her children, more or less on the pastor’s whim.

I found it really disturbing, and so did my wife. But it was her church so we had to go with her wishes.

Somewhere there has to be a balance: a liturgy that one can experience with the senses, that pulls us into the mystery we are celebrating, where we can feel, hear, smell and of course taste God, with all our senses.

I like the Latin, especially for the propers and ordinary. I like the readings though, in the vernacular because for those I have to concentrate to really understand the message (I also always read the passages before Mass so I’m already familiar with them; at the abbey, they are always chanted). However my mother tongue is French and basic Church Latin is no major obstacle for me due to the similarity with French. I realize it isn’t everyone’s taste though, and have no problems with the vernacular, provided it meets the goal of liturgy as a sensorial rather than intellectual experience. There are parts of the Mass to appeal to our intellect (the readings, the homily), but liturgy brings us, or should bring us, mystically into a higher plane that is a foretaste of the communion we’ll experience when we have the Beatific Vision after our earthly passage.

I definitely agree with the use of ritual.

But WHOSE rituals?

You mention chant, incense, bells, processions, and ritual gestures.

These are meaningful to you and to many other Catholics, and touch their HEARTS. They find these rituals helpful as they work to enter into a state of mind, heart, and spirit that allows them to fully worship God.

I know that many converts do like these rituals, too.

But…what is to be done with converts like me and my husband?

We’ve been Catholics for over ten years now, and we have yet to find any solace or beauty in chant. Incense is OK, but it doesn’t do anything for us except make us sit towards the back (my husband is bothered by it). Bells are OK, but we don’t experience any “feelings” over them.

Now, if you bring in a Gospel piano, a chorus of Gospel singers who would lead the congregation in singing together the old-time hymns by Fanny Crosby or Phillip Bliss, or the Wesley brothers…THAT would stir our senses and touch our hearts deeply!

These were OUR traditions, and we miss them. When we do get a chance to experience them again (not very often–about the only time we visit Protestant churches is for funerals, and even there, Protestants sing!), we love it!

But since the Catholic Church pooh-poohs these particular rituals, we’re outta luck, aren’t we?

 

[OraLabora]

I definitely agree with the use of ritual.

But WHOSE rituals?

You mention chant, incense, bells, processions, and ritual gestures.

These are meaningful to you and to many other Catholics, and touch their HEARTS. They find these rituals helpful as they work to enter into a state of mind, heart, and spirit that allows them to fully worship God.

I know that many converts do like these rituals, too.

But…what is to be done with converts like me and my husband?

We’ve been Catholics for over ten years now, and we have yet to find any solace or beauty in chant. Incense is OK, but it doesn’t do anything for us except make us sit towards the back (my husband is bothered by it). Bells are OK, but we don’t experience any “feelings” over them.

Now, if you bring in a Gospel piano, a chorus of Gospel singers who would lead the congregation in singing together the old-time hymns by Fanny Crosby or Phillip Bliss, or the Wesley brothers…THAT would stir our senses and touch our hearts deeply!

These were OUR traditions, and we miss them. When we do get a chance to experience them again (not very often–about the only time we visit Protestant churches is for funerals, and even there, Protestants sing!), we love it!

But since the Catholic Church pooh-poohs these particular rituals, we’re outta luck, aren’t we?

I don’t want to sound flippant about it but… when in Rome…

Thing is the chant, incense, bells, etc., are all part of our traditions. Very important parts, and while many parishes have done away with some or all, they are alive and well in Benedictine monasteries. I won’t hide the fact that Benedictine liturgy was one of the things that first attracted me to them (living the Rule as an oblate grew out of that when I studied more what they were all about, but I digress).

The Church has made allowances for the introduction of non-Catholic liturgy, such as the Anglican Use, but that was to integrate entire communities. With all due respect I think you’re asking too much to have Evangelical rituals somehow integrated into Catholic liturgy other than the odd hymn perhaps, that is theologically neutral enough to not pose any problems.

I think the Mass should be entirely in one language, not mixed up. It doesn’t make parts of the Mass holier than others to use another language for those sections.

It depends. I’ve been to bilingual French/English Masses and those do indeed sound kludgy. On the other hand our abbey mixes Gregorian and French plainchant beautifully, the propers and ordinary in Gregorian chant and the rest in French plainchant. Of course French and Latin do blend together quite well. Some other languages maybe not so much.

The “traditional” liturgy itself mixes languages: though the Mass liturgy is mostly in Latin, the Kyrie is in Greek. Also on Good Friday, the responses to the Improperia are in Greek; it does sound jarring, and I think that’s the intent.

 

[ProVobis]

There is no such thing as an immutable language.

Immutable

Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

-Veterum Sapientia

 

[ProVobis]

But unless that portion of the commentary is out of context, I see no mention of the Mass.

I would think “religious reasons” includes the Mass, if anything.

BTW, Veterum Sapientia is an Apostolic Constitution, the highest level of a decree by a Pope. (Same level as Missale Romanum, which promulgated the New Mass.)

True, it isn’t infallible and it’s not dogma or doctrine. It is, however, exactly what it says it says it is, Veterum Sapientia, or “Wisdom of the Ancient World.”

 

[ProVobis]

These were OUR traditions, and we miss them. When we do get a chance to experience them again (not very often–about the only time we visit Protestant churches is for funerals, and even there, Protestants sing!), we love it!

But since the Catholic Church pooh-poohs these particular rituals, we’re outta luck, aren’t we?

Maybe Catholics want to preserve some form of their own identity?

 

[OraLabora]

Maybe Catholics want to preserve some form of their own identity?

I certainly hope so!

 

[janeway529]

I definitely agree with the use of ritual.
But…what is to be done with converts like me and my husband?

We’ve been Catholics for over ten years now, and we have yet to find any solace or beauty in chant. Incense is OK, but it doesn’t do anything for us except make us sit towards the back (my husband is bothered by it). Bells are OK, but we don’t experience any “feelings” over them.

Now, if you bring in a Gospel piano, a chorus of Gospel singers who would lead the congregation in singing together the old-time hymns by Fanny Crosby or Phillip Bliss, or the Wesley brothers…THAT would stir our senses and touch our hearts deeply!

These were OUR traditions, and we miss them. When we do get a chance to experience them again (not very often–about the only time we visit Protestant churches is for funerals, and even there, Protestants sing!), we love it!

But since the Catholic Church pooh-poohs these particular rituals, we’re outta luck, aren’t we?

Actually, the Catholic Church doesn’t. There are plenty of communities, particularly the parishes with a good-sized African-American community, that have Gospel choirs and liturgical movement. Case in point: The Basilica of St Mary of the Immaculate Conception in Norfolk, VA is the only African American basilica in the country. youtube.com/watch?v=ajK63_p-gQ0