Latin: Divisive or Unitive

[holyfamily1]

I realize many people don’t prefer Latin or Greek in the liturgy. Obviously, Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for it. So here’s the question is Latin or Greek unitive (helping the Church be one, etc.) or divisive (causing constant confusion and boredom, etc)?

 

[Domnall]

Well, simply put, in a world that is becoming more diverse, having something to unify us all is beneficial. For example, if need be the Spanish and English communities at a parish could worship together without feeling separated. Heck, we could even have translated printouts of the homily in both languages for those who may not understand the priest.

 

[LightBound]

You might want to repost the question and poll over in Liturgy and Sacraments for a broader range of participants.

 

[holyfamily1]

I realize many people don’t prefer Latin or Greek in the liturgy. Obviously, Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for it. So here’s the question is Latin or Greek unitive (helping the Church be one, etc.) or divisive (causing constant confusion and boredom, etc)?

Already posted in Traditional Catholicism but,
I was told post here too, so here you go!

 

[otjm]

There are some who appear to be of the opinion that we have so toally moved beyond that.

However, there are fewer and fewer of them, as they are generally from an age group that was born before 1955 (and many of them were born in the 30’s). They are simply dying off, and those 20, 30 50 or more years behind them have other issues.

There are also some who profess that the Church will not be right until the EF become the OF. and from all appearances, they are also in a small minority; if reports are correct, they tend to be far younger; but they are also a minority of a minority.

And there are a whole lot of people in the middle who simply don’t have an opinion, and it is not going to make much impact on their concept of unity. They find unity other than in the language used. They will not object to Latin and Greek being used; but it will not be a unifying issue.

It is not going to cause much more confusion than the minor changes, say, to the Creed. That is a confusion that will not last; neither is it (the changes to the Creed) particularly unifying.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I don’t really agree with either position; it should not be divisive, and by ‘unitive’ it is often implied that it is only unitive if the Latin mass is universally celebrated by everyone. I don’t think this is necessary or beneficial. Now don’t get me wrong - I love the tridentine mass. I go a lot and most of the times I don’t even follow along in the book, I just attend and be still and worship. But I do think it is beneficial normally to be able to follow along with and participate at least verbally in the mass. And you lose some of the experience if you have to have your nose constantly buried in a book. It takes away from the experience and is completely unnecessary.

I think it would be a travesty to get rid of the old Latin mass altogether. I think it would be just as bad to force everyone to use the Latin mass instead of the vernacular. One area where I can agree with a lot of traditional Catholics is that the ordinary form is badly in need of liturgical reform.

 

[Phemie]

Funny you should ask.

My mother tongue is French and I’ve been fluent in English for the past 50+ years. I’ve just returned from Europe where I attended Sunday Masses at a little church in Best, Netherlands, at San Marco in Venice and Notre Dame in Paris.

In Best, Mass was all in Dutch. Only made out a few words here and there but Mass is Mass and I could follow what was going on.

In Venice and Paris, however, the dialogue, readings and homily were in Italian and French, respectively, but the Ordinary was in Greek & Latin. These were sung Masses with Gregorian chant responses.

People who didn’t understand the vernacular could still participate in the common language of a great proportion of Catholics. It united people of many languages. Sadly, it was the first time I’d heard a Latin/Greek Ordinary in over 40 years and I couldn’t sing without a cheat sheet, which wasn’t present at the Mass in Venice. I did have one in Paris and was quite able to follow along.

Would that every parish be able to sing the the Ordinary chants from Jubilate Deo. It would make things so much easier when one goes to a parish whose vernacular isn’t one of the languages you speak.

 

[Phemie]

I don’t really agree with either position; it should not be divisive, and by ‘unitive’ it is often implied that it is only unitive if the Latin mass is universally celebrated by everyone. I don’t think this is necessary or beneficial. Now don’t get me wrong - I love the tridentine mass. I go a lot and most of the times I don’t even follow along in the book, I just attend and be still and worship. But I do think it is beneficial normally to be able to follow along with and participate at least verbally in the mass. And you lose some of the experience if you have to have your nose constantly buried in a book. It takes away from the experience and is completely unnecessary.

I think it would be a travesty to get rid of the old Latin mass altogether. I think it would be just as bad to force everyone to use the Latin mass instead of the vernacular. One area where I can agree with a lot of traditional Catholics is that the ordinary form is badly in need of liturgical reform.

I think the OP’s question is about the Ordinary Form of Mass, not the Extraordinary Form. Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for every Latin Rite Catholic to be able to recite/chant the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin/Greek. Pope Paul VI even gave every parish a free copy of Jubilate Deo, a book containing the chants that every Catholic should know so that when there were celebrations of Mass involving people of different languages, we would all be able to share a common Mass language… It was free and we were free to make as many copies as necessary. It was widely ignored by most parishes.

 

[R_C]

Interesting poll

 

[Lord_Keynes]

On a digressive side note:

This is a bit funny. When I was younger (kid’ish-teenager), I was always mad at how mass wasn’t celebrated in what I thought was the original language of the God and Jesus: Hebrew. I would always leave mass in anger…feeling that we had “totally denigrated His true tongue by no longer using it.” Haha, I remember this quite clearly, too. Oh, childhood.

 

[TimSpalding]

Clearly it’s both. On the one hand Latin is “neutral.” If my church went back to doing the readings in Latin, we wouldn’t have disagreements about how often to do them in French and how often in English. Everyone would be equally baffled. Or do like our grandparents did–say private prayers while the priest did something baffling up there.

On the other hand, most Catholics are turned off by Latin. Personally, I find it creepy. I have no objection to the language. I’m sure I read it better than most priests who offer Latin masses today. (Priests are now encouraged to learn how to speak the words out loud, but even Jesuits rarely study the language.) But just as I wouldn’t solve the English/French controversy in my parish by casting everything in Turkish, I don’t see the case for Latin.

Besides, if we’re going to do it in Latin, it’s funny to use the rather simple Latin of the mass, which was expressly designed to be understood widely. We should do it up right, in suitably tricky and snobbish Ciceronian Latin.

 

[Urn]

I realize many people don’t prefer Latin or Greek in the liturgy. Obviously, Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for it. So here’s the question is Latin or Greek unitive (helping the Church be one, etc.) or divisive (causing constant confusion and boredom, etc)?

Already posted in Traditional Catholicism but,
I was told post here too, so here you go!

Divisive.

Just look at your comment: “helping the Church be one.” Latin and Greek (with tiny exceptions) don’t play any part at all in many of histories of the different Eastern Catholic churches YET some (particularly from the West) try to sell their use as somehow being “unitive.”

Here in California Masses are most typically celebrated in English and Spanish (although many more languages are also used.) I have heard time and time again that if only the Mass were celebrated in Latin, that both English speakers and Spanish speakers (and everyone else for that matter) could attend one Mass. On really?!? So that way no one can follow the Mass, aye?

I wonder how many English-speaking Latin proponents have English/Spanish Missalettes so they can attend the Mass in Spanish from time to time? Not many is my guess. The reverse is also probably true although most native Spanish speakers can already follow the Mass in Latin.

 

[felsguy]

I realize many people don’t prefer Latin or Greek in the liturgy. Obviously, Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for it. So here’s the question is Latin or Greek unitive (helping the Church be one, etc.) or divisive (causing constant confusion and boredom, etc)?

.

 

[ProVobis]

I wonder how many English-speaking Latin proponents have English/Spanish Missalettes so they can attend the Mass in Spanish from time to time? Not many is my guess.

(Raising hand)

Except I find my Latin-Spanish printout easier to follow. My first language is Polish, btw.

 

[TimSpalding]

If you think we should use a language nobody understands, how does one make sense of the mission of saints like Jerome, Cyril and Methodius, Mesrob and the rest?

Within a generation the Christian church had expanded from Aramaic to Greek and within several hundred years it had translated the Bible and was saying liturgies in Latin, Coptic, Ge’ez, Nubian, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, etc. It’s clear this was done so that people could worship God in their own language.

When did that notion become wrong?

 

[ProVobis]

If Latin works for the US $1 bill and U.S. seal, it can certainly work as a uniting factor for the Church.

 

[EphelDuath]

Here in California Masses are most typically celebrated in English and Spanish (although many more languages are also used.) I have heard time and time again that if only the Mass were celebrated in Latin, that both English speakers and Spanish speakers (and everyone else for that matter) could attend one Mass. On really?!? So that way no one can follow the Mass, aye?

Then nobody was able to follow the Mass until Vatican II. If Latinists are wrong now, then you were wrong for most of the temporal history of the Latin-rite Church.

Mass in the vernacular, though in no way an inherently bad thing, has widely lead people to erroneously believe that Mass can only be about what they understand of it; what Pope Benedict called the “didactic fallacy”. It’s a bunch of kafka. Mass is an act of worship. If you don’t know what’s going on because you don’t understand the words, then you didn’t know what was going on in even your native tongue, because you were catechized with vast poorness.

Before Vatican II, one who only speaks English and one who only speaks Spanish would naturally kneel before God in the same manner with no barrier between them. Now it’s considered fortunate if they even know they’re both Catholic.

I wonder how many English-speaking Latin proponents have English/Spanish Missalettes so they can attend the Mass in Spanish from time to time?

What’s the point? I don’t speak Spanish, so there’s no point in me going to a Spanish Mass unless there’s no English/Latin licit Masses available for me to go to. That’s the fruit of the vernacular.

 

[otjm]

If Latin works for the US $1 bill and U.S. seal, it can certainly work as a uniting factor for the Church.

Oh - I forgot; the US is united… Tell that to the Senate and the House; to the Dems and Repubs; the straights and the gays…

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I don’t know Latin but I voted that it was unitive.

I believe that the Latin bible is more accurate–shoot probably everything the church does is more spot on accurate in Latin.

 

[TimSpalding]

I believe that the Latin bible is more accurate–shoot probably everything the church does is more spot on accurate in Latin.

Than what, the Greek? Why not use that? You don’t know either, I’ll hazard. They’re equally tough to learn.