Latin and vernacular are both languages used by the Church

[Spyridon]

From the Office of Lections today, I found this great gem of wisdom.

It’s from a sermon from an anonymous 6th century Saint.

"Therefore if somebody should say to one of us, “You have received the Holy Spirit, why do you not speak in tongues?” his reply should be, “I do indeed speak in the tongues of all men, because I belong to the body of Christ, that is, the Church, and she speaks all languages. What else did the presence of the Holy Spirit indicate at Pentecost, except that God’s Church was to speak in the language of every people?”

 

[Spyridon]

Any comments folks!

 

[Augustinian]

Sure they did. They didn’t know every word that was being spoken, but they generally knew what was coming down.

Someone once said 90% of communication is non-verbal, and this is one of those cases. Based upon where the priest was standing, what he was doing, an informed Catholic could easily see how the Mass was progressing.

There are a lot of things to be said for the protocols of the current day- but the idea that Latin Mass attendees didn’t understand the Mass back in the day is incorrect. Of course there were some uninformed people back then, but there is today too.

 

[Seagull]

Someone once said 90% of communication is non-verbal, and this is one of those cases.

Very cool point.
During the mass everyone sings in Latin - this one part.
I go to the church misselette - and read along - sing along -
but even that isnt easy.
I cant imagine learning the language.
In fact, I can only speak one language - English with some seagull brogue !

 

[ProVobis]

Vernacular is the official language of the Church of Babel.

 

[Pup7]

Vernacular is the official language of the Church of Babel.

Then what are you speaking at the moment?

 

[Usagi]

I agree with your overall point, Spyridon, but I also question the notion that parishioners in the days of Mass in Latin would have remained ignorant of the content.

If you’re attending Mass for years or decades, especially starting as a child, and you have a Latin/English missal to follow along in, you’re going to learn the thing by sheer repetition, even if you don’t understand a bit of Latin beyond that.

 

[joeybaggz]

As one who nothing but the latin mass until I was 16, Augustinian is correct in that most people had a general idea of what was occurring. We knew opening rite, liturgy of the word, Proper of the Mass, and dismissal. Most people said the rosary or looked around at everybody else and the church interior during mass. People knew when to get up and receive communion (replete with all the germs on the fingers of the minister from the guy in front of you), and then left as soon as possible. Where I attended Mass, at least 40% of the people were gone before the final blessing.
To this day I can sing/recite the first several verses of Tantum Ergo. I must have sung it a couple hundred times in my youth. To this day, I have no idea what the first few verses mean. Most of just recited everything phonetically, not knowing what the Latin Meant. There were side by side missalettes with Latin/English so you knew what was said, but most people didn’t really pay attention. The just numbly recited the latin from memory.

 

[StephieNorthCo]

I was born in mid 40s. So I was in my teens before the Mass was in vernacular. Yes I understood what was being said. As is just as true today, some people were paying attention. Some saying the rosary. Some looking around to see what others are doing. Some just contemplating. The Missal had the English side and the Latin side. Even as a kid, just learning to read, it’s fairly obvious what’s happening. Comparing sides ain’t that tough.

I see both sides… today more people CAN follow along. Not all do.

In my trips overseas, it would have been nice to have the Latin Mass, but the form suffices. It would hAve been easier if I could have understood the readings and the Homolies but…

My lingering worry is language drift. Latin, as a deadish language don’t drift. Yet the periodic updates we get seem to have that issue addressed.

 

[gracepoole]

Oh, goody. Another Latin vs. vernacular thread. Said no one ever…

 

[joeybaggz]

My above post and Stephie’s post probably give a pretty complete picture of attendees at the Pre VII Latin Mass.
It is just that I prefer the NO because even half paying attention, people can understand what is happening. The Latin/Tridentine traditional mass needs to be continued for those who find it edifying. It is just that I, personally, don’t want to see it resurrected as the only form.

 

[joeybaggz]

Maybe they were bored? Actually, I remember (at least in my own circle) an attitude that attending Mass was simply marking off a check mark in a Divine attendance book that existed only in their minds. I remember that to be considered having fulfilled one’s Sunday obligation, one had to arrive before the gospel, and stay until after the priest returns to the altar after ministering communion. You wouldn’t believe the number of people who took this to the letter.
Some of that still exists today, but for the last 20 years or so, the churches I attend don’t have the same situation with early departees. Yes there are people who arrive late, but not in the numbers I remember as a boy.

 

[joeybaggz]

It is interesting that people I see at Mass today, arrive on time and stay till the priest processes from the altar. Most people that show up late have little (or not so little) children and one can understand that. And I know that some of those who leave early are nurses and others who have to be to work and live a distance away. Georgetown University keeps statistics on # of Catholics and their activity in the US. Mass attendance for all Catholics who have been baptized (whether they practice the faith or not) is at about 22 to 30%. I wonder in that figure could it be indicative that the 20/30% are those who love the faith and are trying to grow closer to God. After all, there is a law (I think it is called Phillips Law) that says 20% of a given population will provide 80% of the support of an organization. Just wondering.

 

[AndrewAxland]

Any comments folks!

I wonder if third century Trads carried on like our modern ones when the traditional language of the Roman Rite (Greek) was replaced by the lowly vernacular (Latin)?

Or when the traditional chant of the Roman Rite (Old Roman Chant) was abandoned in favor of that foreign innovation (Gregorian Chant, which was invented in what are now France, Germany, Switzerland and the Low Countries)?

I wonder whether people pitched a fit when organum, ars nova and polyphony were introduced (all non-Roman inventions)?

I know that letting prepubescent boys sing in the choir in the tenth century met with more than a little disapproval.

As did the ripping down of the chancel screens “in the spirit of the Council” (Trent).

As did allowing lay men to sing in the choir.

And we all know that women singing during the liturgy was considered scandalous by many, and not explicitly allowed until 1954, and then under limited circumstances. They weren’t fully allowed to sing until 1983.

Were people scandalized when boys were first allowed serve mass?

Or when Protestant inspired non-liturgical hymn were introduced, together with the Protestant practice of congregational singing?

Or when castrati were introduced, though nobodies opinion counted because the Pope thought they were “delightful”?

And on and on.

The Mass has always been constantly evolving. There is no point in time that you could say is “Traditional” with a capital T. A typical Tridentine mass from 1950 would have shocked the bishops of the Council of Trent with all of its Protestant borrowings.

 

[dochawk]

A typical Tridentine mass from 1950 would have shocked the bishops of the Council of Trent with all of its Protestant borrowings.

For that matter, the “Low mass” as set forth at Trent actually codified what was until then a liturgical abuse . . . (omitting parts to be able to say more masses/priest/day for the stipends! Until that time, for the parts of the western church that used the liturgy from Rome the norm/prescribed form was what would be redesigned “high Mass” . .)

 

[Spyridon]

Probably @AndrewAxland, probably

 

[OraLabora]

Any comments folks!

Well, yes, by its nature the vernacular cannot be the universal language of the Church, because the vernacular is not a language, it is an attribute of a language: a language is either vernacular to the person using it, or foreign. Therefore the vernacular encompasses all languages.

You could say that the allowing the vernacular is a universal law of the Church, but Latin is still the universal language as it is the source language for all the official translations into the vernacular not only of Church documents but also her liturgy.

I have been to several in fact, but only in the Ordinary Form

At least that I remember, I was born in 1958 and don’t remember too many Masses of my childhood. I was a typical restless kid in church in those days with just about zero interest in religion, and have little recall of the liturgy itself though I remember being in church.

I twice read the epistle at weekday private OF Masses, in Latin.

I understand enough to know what the priest is saying at Mass, except for the readings though. I can read Latin fluently from being a chorister in a Gregorian schola, but I don’t understand it fluently. Still, it’s similar enough to my mother tongue, French, that I can sort of work my way through it. I suspect for native English-speakers it is more difficult but for those of us fluent in one of the Romance languages, it’s a bit easier.

 

[OraLabora]

Or when the traditional chant of the Roman Rite (Old Roman Chant) was abandoned in favor of that foreign innovation (Gregorian Chant, which was invented in what are now France, Germany, Switzerland and the Low Countries)?

Not to mention Gallican, Mozarabic, Sarum, and Beneventan chant to name a few. And all the rites abolished at Trent as well.

And we all know that women singing during the liturgy was considered scandalous by many, and not explicitly allowed until 1954, and then under limited circumstances. They weren’t fully allowed to sing until 1983.

Perhaps in parishes but in monasteries women have been chanting the Hours for millennia.

 

[Saxum]

Latin is the language of the Church. Fact. Read Veterum Sapientia. It’s a very important document - the most ignored papal teaching in history! St John XXIII told us that Latin has been sanctified by the saints throughout the ages. That’s why it’s special and has pride of place.

Modernists hate Latin. They want to eradicate it. It reminds them of the pre-Vatican II Church that was firm on discipline and doctrine. The apostolic doctrines are written in Latin tomes. The heretics know that ignorance of the language will lead to ignorance of doctrine. And we see this ignorance in our time.

 

[Spyridon]

The apostolic doctrines are written in Latin tomes.

Aramaic and Greek were the languages of the Church for the first three centuries.

As the African Father says in todays Liturgy -

What else did the presence of the Holy Spirit indicate at Pentecost, except that God’s Church was to speak in the language of every people?”

Lastly, Latin is NOT and NEVER has been the universal language of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not just the Roman Catholic Church, it is 24 sui iuris Churches in communion with Rome.

I think Aramaic speaking Chaldean Catholics would he surprised to find out Latin is the language of the Church.

Latin is the language of the ROMAN Church - NOT the Catholic Church.

Catholics desperately need to move out of this Rome-centric mindset… The Eastern Churches will NEVER reunify if it means they need to become Roman… And I don’t blame them.

Roman/Latin supremacy comes from pride, not wisdom.