Latin and You. Wherein Fr. Z Rants

[ProVobis]

There is only ONE Church. That is one of the marks of the Church. It is fine to have different rites, but there is no moral imperative to care about distinguishing one rite from another, let alone ours from any other. If anything, the imperative is to avoid doing that.

Okay. But the language extends to more than the liturgy. Church documents, preservation of Scripture, even the moral code. The early Church fathers favored or adopted Cicero’s De Officiis (On Civic Duties) which was right up there with the Bible when Gutenberg started printing.

 

[otjm]

6 decades ago there were two all boys Catholic high schools. I started in one, and Latin was taught as a translated language; we crossed the Rubicon and dabbled in Cicero.

I then moved to the other high school, and upon entering the classroom as a Junior, found I was bereft of experience, as Latin was taught as a spoken language. A question was asked, and as I tried to translate it, then translate back an answer, I was 3 or more questions behind. The teacher, upon trying to tutor me threw up his hands and “suggested” I drop the class.

However, I also started taking Homeric Greek, and as a translated language; we read and translated the better part of the Odyssey, and I pulled down A’s. In part of senior year we read St. John’s Gospel.

Then, in college seminary, we did more Latin - again as a translated language. That seemed to be the way the vast majority went at it.

Boring? Well, I liked Greek better, but better is a relative term.

 

[ProVobis]

He does gloss over the obvious truth that putting the Mass into Latin was itself a translation into a common language.

The more common language was Vulgar Latin, from which today’s Romance languages descend. The language codified by Cicero was not a true vernacular. Maybe it was intended to be immortal and unchanging but I don’t know for sure.

 

[otjm]

Latin does not keep the Church from following the fads of the culture; that is borderline a slur on all the Eastern Rite Churches. The Holy Spirit keeps the Church from following the fads of culture.

The issue of “Love” is the one set out in St. Paul; not romance, but rather the self-giving which is at the very root of Christ’s message.And it was in the 1970’s that musicians started writing music using texts from Scripture. So we complete the circle, with scriptural passages set to music: it always amazes me the amount of angst and snide comments that are made of such. No, it is not Gregorian Chant - which, as Ora Labora has pointed out, was well on its way down before the start of the 20th century, and it was not the florid 4 part harmonies of Palestrina; but I will put a whole lot of money on a bet that those who express such disdain would be shocked and appalled were they to hear what was sung in the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Then, again, they would be shocked and appalled at the Mass itself as it was nowhere near the complex rubrics of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

 

[Moose]

Nothing “wrong” with pre-Vatican 2 and some might suggest that he IS ministering to a flock that becomes more digital daily.
This faith does NOT change…it CANNOT change. Those who disagree might be best served by either educating themselves on this faith or …

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree with this one. The Church has Latin as it’s official language for a reason and that is to keep the Church “one”. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church was promulgated in Latin.

There is no reason why as Catholics we can’t “Love” as set out in St. Paul, be self-giving as it is at the very root of Christ’s message and have Latin as our official language. The Church has been doing it for years.

God bless.

 

[twf]

The various Eastern rites still use screens / curtains.

 

[dochawk]

Latin is the official language of record for all of the Eastern Churches, regardless of which liturgical language they use.

If you have a source that actually says this, I’ll be stunned, but interested.

Given that this would be an even more flagrant dilation of Brest, Uzhzrod, etc. than usual, and that when the Vatican presumed to publish its Ruthenian Recension it was in Slavonic . . .

The language codified by Cicero was not a true vernacular. Maybe it was intended to be immortal and unchanging but I don’t know for sure.

Even by the time Cicero and Caesar wrote, vulgar and formal latin had diverged.

Even they probably didn’t speak like they wrote.

The more common language was Vulgar Latin, from which today’s Romance languages descend.

They’re just “extra vulgar” latin :crazy_face:

 

[GordonP]

Given that this would be an even more flagrant dilation of Brest, Uzhzrod, etc. than usual, and that when the Vatican presumed to publish its Ruthenian Recension it was in Slavonic . . .

The Union of Brest deals with liturgical language and the languages used in seminaries, not with the language of record.

See paragraphs 2 and 27 here:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/treatbr.htm

Likewise, the Ruthenian rescension refers only to liturgical language.

As for canon law, the official version is in Latin. All translations are to be made exclusively from this version. Here it is from the Vatican website:

https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-...-ii_apc_19901018_codex-can-eccl-orient-1.html

 

[GordonP]

The various Eastern rites still use screens / curtains.

They were used in the Latin Church until shortly after Trent, when they were dispensed with “in the spirit of the Council”. They were largely obliterated in western churches, although some examples remain here and there, predominantly in churches that were taken over by the Protestants. The church in the video I posted is a Lutheran church in Sweden with an intact chancel screen (without the curtains, of course).

 

[Peeps]

Sensitive Catholics might not want to read this question!

Do you happen to know if there is any historical connection between the development of the “complex rubrics” of the Mass in the 17th-19th centuries and the “secular theater” of that time?

Were the rubrics of the Mass developed to prevent Mass from becoming “theater,” or was it just the opposite–theater practices of that time were inserted into the rubrics to make the Mass more appealing to the faithful?

An example would be the arrangement of the people–when the did the Mass go from being around a table (ss it was in Jesus’ time and was in homes) to being in front of rows of pews where the people sat (like a theater). It seems like “theater” of that time might have influenced the Mass to be less like a “meal” and more like a “show.”

Thanks.

 

[Salibi]

Actually, as Christianity grew it became less convenient to have Mass around a table in someone’s house and more convenient to have it in a specially designated church building. The Mass is still a meal.

Can you provide a source for this “example” of yours that Mass was changed to resemble a theatre?

By the way, people were attending Mass in “theatre-like rows of pews” churches before the 17th and 19th centuries.

The only sensitive Catholics you’re likely to offend are those without an atom of brain in their bodies.

 

[GordonP]

when the did the Mass go from being around a table (ss it was in Jesus’ time and was in homes) to being in front of rows of pews where the people sat (like a theater)

It never made that transition. It stopped being like a meal well before the fourth century, and pews became common in the seventeenth century. For the 1300 years in between, it was nothing like either a meal or a spectacle. The spectacle aspect of Catholic ritual took off in the mid fifteenth century, both because of a resurgence in Catholic esthetics after the debacle of the Great Western Schism, and because of an influx of Greek churchmen after the fall of Constantinople. It really took off as part of the counter-reformational Baroque, when every effort was made to distinguish Catholicism from Protestantism. There was another movement during the Romantic era, to capture an imaginary “Golden Age” of gold and trumpets, pomp and glitter.

In none of these cases was theater a direct influence, as far as I can tell. Any similarities seem to be coincidental.

 

[Neithan]

The clergy should definitely all know Latin fluently and have at least a basic knowledge of Greek. Seminary should ensure this. While it’s definitely not plausible for all the laity (and I definitely don’t know it fluently) it should be encouraged and it should be the standard for at least the ordinary parts of Mass (which don’t change anyway). The church has roots, and Latin is one of them; its influence is vast and obvious, like the alphabet (and many root words) we are using right now.

 

[OraLabora]

Regardless of how the Mass got there, it did become overly encumbered by too much minutiae. Someone linked to this on another thread to confirm the existence of free-standing altars prior to Vatican II:

How to Incense a Freestanding Altar

Sacred liturgy and liturgical arts. Liturgical history and theology. The movements for the Usus Antiquior and Reform of the Reform.

www.newliturgicalmovement.org

Quite a part from the fact that it confirms free-standing altars (which in fact was the preferred type of altar where there was a choir, with the tabernacle moved off to a side chapel as well), is the minute detail given on the number of swings and position of swings to incense the altar. It is mind-boggling that the celebrant had to remember such minutiae. And there’s more elsewhere; I have a 1935 Ceremonial and there are things like how to hold thumb and forefinger together, the difference and appropriate use of full bows and “mediocre” bows, and more.

A quick perusal of that ceremonial provides more than enough “why” for the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. Some claim Vatican II was “lack of organic development”. I would argue that it was lack of organic development in the old Mass (i.e. getting rid of stuff that had become redundant before adding anything. new) that led to the need for a more radical reform, that at the end of the day isn’t so radical at all. The basic structures are the same, but there was a good spring cleaning…

I really don’t think it was theatrics either, just a long period of accretions the meaning of which got lost in the mists of time.

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

I like free-standing altars, but I find it kind of awkward when the crucifix is facing the people rather than away. I dunno, it might just be me.

 

[OraLabora]

Not sure where you get that. The crucifix should conform to the orientation of the altar. In the old days, when a free-standing altar faced the nave (priest celebrates facing away from the nave), the crucifix must be visible from the nave, and to the priest. When the altar faces the choir, that is the priest celebrates facing away from the choir and towards the nave, the crucifix should be facing the priest and choir.

 

[PetraG]

The clergy should definitely all know Latin fluently and have at least a basic knowledge of Greek. Seminary should ensure this. While it’s definitely not plausible for all the laity (and I definitely don’t know it fluently) it should be encouraged and it should be the standard for at least the ordinary parts of Mass (which don’t change anyway). The church has roots, and Latin is one of them; its influence is vast and obvious, like the alphabet (and many root words) we are using right now.

I think a basic knowledge of Latin and Greek are sufficient as the minimum for priests, although a much higher standard in Latin is necessary for bishops.

In our region, the US West, the problem is finding men who are bilingual in English and a second language such as Spanish, Vietnamese or Filipino/Tagalog. We even have priests learning ASL so they can hear the confessions of the Deaf. It is great to be able to read Church documents in the language in which they were promulgated, the bishops have to be able to do that, certainly, but when it comes to priests it is even more important to be able to hear confessions than to read Church legislation in the language in which it is binding or to be able to pray in a language with a long history (even if it is not the original language of Christianity).

Honestly, does Fr. Z really think that priests are going to get enough Latin so they have the ability to quibble with the translations approved by the bishops? Really? We have a priest shortage, and that’s the most important thing the faithful need?

There is a lot to be said for learning Latin. As Charlemagne said, “To have another language is to possess a second soul.” Latin is an irreplaceable window into the soul of the Roman Rite. Even if you’re not Catholic, the language has a unique versatility, without a doubt. Trying to argue that we Catholics need to be able to quibble with translations approved by the bishops is not a strong reason for every priest to know it. Let’s not forget that there are actually Protestant denominations built on someone who thought he was a better Greek scholar than the Church (in spite of the obvious fact that Greek Christians have been speaking Greek and understanding the meaning of the texts since they were written.)

 

[otjm]

I don’t know of any research indicating any connections between the rubrics of the Mass and secular theater.

It may be that there is scholarly work on when and how the rubrics were changed throughout the history of the Mass, but I suspect there may be little or nothing generally available.

 

[otjm]

Interesting that you should bring that up.

I have seen pictures of Pope Benedict with a small crucifix on the altar facing him.

We have had a couple of parishioners in our parish trying to get rid of our large “Risen Christ” and replace it with a crucifix. My question is “How many crucific=xes do we need in the sanctuary? There is one on the altar, one on the tabernacle and the processional crucifix.”

The lead person seems to think we “possibly don’t get it” because we don’t have one 12 feet tall (about the height of the Risen Christ).

Given a parish with 25 years of Perpetual Adoration, my questions is “Really? REALLY?”

I have no objections to a crucifix (as noted, we have 3!) but I have heard it said by priests and theologians more than once that if Christ did not rise, we are all fools. Is not the Risen Christ, with the nail marks visible, also appropriate as an expression of our faith?

Ah, but you and I are off topic…