Latin: Divisive or Unitive

[JustaServant]

ProVobis, this is a dreadful quote to post out of context, without telling anyone who the author is or what the circumstances were! I didn’t report you over this, but I thought about it. If it were anyone else that I didn’t know, I would have hit the report button.

So now I’m an “enemy of Rome”. And I’m not a “faithful Catholic” because I don’t “leave my native language at the door.” Thank a whole lot!

No wonder Catholics quit the Church! If someone said this to me in person, I would be pretty devastated. In fact, I’m devastated now, although I know enough to know not to believe everything I read that sounds Catholic.

This is why we need to listen to our own bishops and priests. .

From Wikipedia:

Dom Prosper Louis Pascal Guéranger (4 April 1805, Sablé-sur-Sarthe, France – 30 January 1875, Solesmes, France) was a Benedictine priest, abbot of Solesmes Abbey (which he founded in the disused priory of Solesmes) and founder of the French Benedictine Congregation (now the Solesmes Congregation).

You need to calm down Cat. He was quoting, as I did, a priest on the reasons for Latin in the liturgy. PV was not attacking you. Granted, the priest’s words are very passionate, but instructive. Like Bishop Headly, he gives reasons why Latin is unitive.
In fact this whole thread is silly, IMO. The Church has declared that Latin is unitive and explained why. We shouldn’t be taking polls on what the Church has already explained.
You say we need to listen to our own Bishops and priests.
I agree.

 

[ProVobis]

LOL! I’m beginning to see why Latin is divisive. Just look how polarized the thread has become. in all seriousness… The opinions expressed on this thread just proved my point in post #28.

Serious or not, such was not the case in 1962. Formed committees such as the ICEL et al were responsible for the diviseness during and after Vatican II IMO.

 

[QuestingKnight]

Things will be much better when lay Catholics stop thinking the Mass is about them; that they are its object. Even “assisting” at Mass is a misunderstanding of the original French word, “assister”, from which it is derived, in the liturgical context.

In French, “assister” means “to attend” and “attendre” means “to wait upon”.

So what the laity are supposed to be doing is attending Mass.

If one is not the focus of the sacred rite, one doesn’t need it in English.

There are many points in favour of retaining Latin and only one for all-vernacular: ‘the laity must understand the mass’. All of it.

I had a sense our clergy panicked in the 60’s. They thought they had to embrace the popular culture to stop lay people apostasising. They may also have bought into this culture: revolution, love, individualism. Those were heady days.

Thus all the populist changes.

 

[Cat]

From Wikipedia:

You need to calm down Cat. He was quoting, as I did, a priest on the reasons for Latin in the liturgy. PV was not attacking you. Granted, the priest’s words are very passionate, but instructive. Like Bishop Headly, he gives reasons why Latin is unitive.
In fact this whole thread is silly, IMO. The Church has declared that Latin is unitive and explained why. We shouldn’t be taking polls on what the Church has already explained.
You say we need to listen to our own Bishops and priests.
I agree.

So I’m not an “enemy of Rome?”

More importantly, do people like you and ProVobis consider Cat an “enemy of Rome” because I “dislike” Latin?

To me, this thread is about unity among Catholics, and it seems pretty obvious to me that there is a division among Catholics over the issue of Latin use in the OF Mass. And it seems pretty obvious to me that there are hard feelings over this division, and that love is lost between the two camps.

Not a good situation for the Church. The New Testament writers had a lot to say about “factions” and “divisions” in the Church.

 

[JustaServant]

So I’m not an “enemy of Rome?”

More importantly, do people like you and ProVobis consider Cat an “enemy of Rome” because I “dislike” Latin?

To me, this thread is about unity among Catholics, and it seems pretty obvious to me that there is a division among Catholics over the issue of Latin use in the OF Mass. And it seems pretty obvious to me that there are hard feelings over this division, and that love is lost between the two camps.

Not a good situation for the Church. The New Testament writers had a lot to say about “factions” and “divisions” in the Church.

What are you talking about? I nor PV never said any such thing. If you dislike Latin, so be it. Nobody is putting a gun to your head forcing you to an EF Mass.
We’ve been around this mulberry bush before Cat, and I will give you the same answer I gave before (since cut and paste is all I seem to post nowadays).

As history has shown, the propagation of the Catholic faith has always been done in the language of the people.
The Mass was always in Latin and the people’s understanding of every word and gesture was not important to them.
In fact, Catholics 1000 years ago would have looked very confused if you wanted a complete translation of the Mass, but that’s another thread.
We need to look no further than Protestantism to see the results or using languages “understood by the people” Luther’s Bible and the Anglican Book of Common Prayer Cramner used are both in archaic English. Languages change over time, the meanings of words change. Which is one of the major factors in the thousands of Protestant denominations.
I will add to this year-old post, to say the Ordinary Form is ordinary, but the Extrodinary Form is extrodianary. Meaning, unlike the Anglicans and the Lutherans, the Church DID NOT do away with the Latin, and never will.
Okay?

 

[Seamus_L]

I’m sure some people will get offended if I state the very obvious, but alot of clergy and laity in many areas want no part of the the Latin Mass, and the reasons have nothing to do with them not liking Latin. Every survey we see seems to confirm the disturbing reality that in most places, the Catholic Church is for all intents and purposes a very liberal institution. Plain and simple, in alot of places, the traditional views held by those who attend the Latin Mass is what is really frowned upon by modern progressive Catholics.

 

[ProVobis]

Just like English is the Lingua Franca in the world, Latin can be in the Liturgy.

Interestingly enough, there is more Latin on the U.S. $1 bill than there is in a typical U.S. Mass.

Just an observation.

 

[Rich_C]

And the inability to tell what was going on in that Spanish Mass is the same thing that was going on in the 1950’s where the parish did not provide missals or missalettes, and for the large portion of people who did not have a missal, they were just as lost.

I think this is just perpetuating a stereotype that I wish some older members would comment on. Seriously, I know lots of children under 10 who know what is happening at Mass, at least they can identity 3 to 5 major events as they happen. People were not stupid. At worst, they didn’t not know what psalm the gradual was that week.

What unites us is the liturgy, whether it is in Latin, Greek, Spanish, Church Salvonic, Chinese, Vietnamese, Urdu, Swahili or something else. **The readings occur at the same point; the Epiclesus, consecration, or whatever part at the same point, **never mind the language it is being celebrated in. What unites us is Christ.

Actually, now that I don’t attend it every Sunday (and rarely at the same place twice) I find the Ordinary Form hard enough to follow even though it’s in my vernacular.

Things don’t always happen at the same time.

When father elects to use a short Eucharistic Prayer, the consecration is often over before I know what happened.

When he elects to use the Apostles Creed, the incarnatus est has usually gone by before I figure out that it’s not the Nicene Creed. There are other examples.

And all these options make the OF even harder to follow in other vernaculars, in my experience.

I think Latin is unitive but there is more to it.

 

[Phemie]

Originally Posted by otjm forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
And the inability to tell what was going on in that Spanish Mass is the same thing that was going on in the 1950’s where the parish did not provide missals or missalettes, and for the large portion of people who did not have a missal, they were just as lost.

I think this is just perpetuating a stereotype that I wish some older members would comment on. Seriously, I know lots of children under 10 who know what is happening at Mass, at least they can identity 3 to 5 major events as they happen. People were not stupid. At worst, they didn’t not know what psalm the gradual was that week.

I was following along at Mass in my little ‘picture’ Missal when I was 7. I knew where we were and the Rosary was never encouraged at Mass by my parents.

Later I followed along in my Aunt’s missal. I thought we had to make the sign of the cross everywhere there was a ✠. Auntie got very confused by my gestures.

“Our pew” was fairly close to the front of the church and we could keep track of what was happening based on the priest’s gestures, which we sometimes mimicked at home by ‘celebrating Mass’ with the small chalice, ciborium and paten that my brother had been given as a gift by a priest friend of the family.

 

[EphelDuath]

Later I followed along in my Aunt’s missal. I thought we had to make the sign of the cross everywhere there was a ✠. Auntie got very confused by my gestures.

Sorry to go off topic, but do you know what that cross is called? I have gone mad trying to research “cross in liturgical books” because I don’t know it’s actual name.

 

[Rich_C]

I was following along at Mass in my little ‘picture’ Missal when I was 7. I knew where we were and the Rosary was never encouraged at Mass by my parents.

Later I followed along in my Aunt’s missal. I thought we had to make the sign of the cross everywhere there was a ✠. Auntie got very confused by my gestures.

“Our pew” was fairly close to the front of the church and we could keep track of what was happening based on the priest’s gestures, which we sometimes mimicked at home by ‘celebrating Mass’ with the small chalice, ciborium and paten that my brother had been given as a gift by a priest friend of the family.

We hope to have children as soon as possible and I hope we’ll do as good a job teaching them to follow Mass as your parents did.

One of our first times at the Latin Mass, we sat behind a family with five young boys. The oldest had a real missal and was showing the next oldest how to follow along, the third oldest had a children’s missal, probably like you describe, and was following along at his own level, with the fourth boy looking over his shoulder. The youngest had a book of sacred art from the Renaissance and was looking through it very studiously but not really paying attention to Mass (he was probably age 3). It was inspiring.

If nothing else, kids are usually awestruck by the Mass somewhere around age 3 or 4, from what I’ve witnessed. They know something big is happening up there.

 

[Razanir]

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.

I must disagree. In Cicero’s time, rhetoric was insanely important. Part of why the grammar is so convoluted is that people cared more about how nice you sounded than about how sound your arguments are. By St. Augustine’s time, the focus shifted to having a sound argument, rather than just sounding nice.

To me, this thread is about unity among Catholics, and it seems pretty obvious to me that there is a division among Catholics over the issue of Latin use in the OF Mass. And it seems pretty obvious to me that there are hard feelings over this division, and that love is lost between the two camps.

Not a good situation for the Church. The New Testament writers had a lot to say about “factions” and “divisions” in the Church.

I’ll agree that the EF v OF debate is troublesome. But what language is the best liturgy sounds like what color should we paint the walls. An accessory. What matters is that even if we disagree on minor outward details like that, that we still agree theologically. IMO, the divisions chastised in the NT more reference the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Farmer88]

The flaw in this topic is that the vernacular in the Eastern Catholic Churches has almost always been the norm. Plus, not even all the Eastern Catholic Churches used the same “old historic” language to begin with in their liturgies. There was Greek, there was Church Slavonic, there was Syriac. And those are only three. The Russian Old Believers (who are schismatic Orthodox) refused to go back to the vernacular and wanted to remain with Church Slavonic, but their situation was different than this whole “Latin versus vernacular” situation is today. For the Latin Catholics, the vernacular was never really a thing, probably initially since Latin was the vernacular once upon a time, but quickly became not one.

 

[ProVobis]

We need to look no further than Protestantism to see the results or using languages “understood by the people” Luther’s Bible and the Anglican Book of Common Prayer Cramner used are both in archaic English. Languages change over time, the meanings of words change. Which is one of the **major factors in the thousands of Protestant denominations. **

Thank you, JS.

Old and Middle English came and went, 2013 English will become obsolete, but Latin continues to live on. The Church knew what it was doing when it chose the stability of Latin to express its theology, prayers, liturgy, doctrine, etc. as well as to preserve its timeless documents.

 

[ProVobis]

We need to look no further than Protestantism to see the results or using languages “understood by the people” Luther’s Bible and the Anglican Book of Common Prayer Cramner used are both in archaic English. Languages change over time, the meanings of words change. Which is one of the **major factors in the thousands of Protestant denominations. **

Thank you, JS.

Old and Middle English came and went, 2013 English will become obsolete, but Latin continues to live on. The Church knew what it was doing when it chose the stability of Latin to express its theology, prayers, liturgy, doctrine, etc. as well as to preserve its timeless documents.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The flaw in this topic is that the vernacular in the Eastern Catholic Churches has almost always been the norm. Plus, not even all the Eastern Catholic Churches used the same “old historic” language to begin with in their liturgies. There was Greek, there was Church Slavonic, there was Syriac. And those are only three. The Russian Old Believers (who are schismatic Orthodox) refused to go back to the vernacular and wanted to remain with Church Slavonic, but their situation was different than this whole “Latin versus vernacular” situation is today. For the Latin Catholics, the vernacular was never really a thing, probably initially since Latin was the vernacular once upon a time, but quickly became not one.

Can we necessarily extend the Eastern vernacular argument to the West any more than we can necessarily extend the Western non-vernacular argument to the East?

 

[Baelor]

Actually, now that I don’t attend it every Sunday (and rarely at the same place twice) I find the Ordinary Form hard enough to follow even though it’s in my vernacular.

Things don’t always happen at the same time.

When father elects to use a short Eucharistic Prayer, the consecration is often over before I know what happened.

When he elects to use the Apostles Creed, the incarnatus est has usually gone by before I figure out that it’s not the Nicene Creed. There are other examples.

You are correct with the Apostle/Nicene Creed (but one could easily enough learn the beginnings and then be able to tell immediately), but surely there are enough gestural and verbal cues (Hoc est…) to know that the consecration is occurring?

 

[ProVobis]

There was Greek, there was Church Slavonic, there was Syriac. And those are only three.

Old Church Slavonic was a vernacular, like a street language?

 

[Rich_C]

You are correct with the Apostle/Nicene Creed (but one could easily enough learn the beginnings and then be able to tell immediately), but surely there are enough gestural and verbal cues (Hoc est…) to know that the consecration is occurring?

I guess if I had all four versions memorized. But the only one I know well is the Roman Canon.

The common cue seems to be “On the night before He was betrayed…” but that’s only a few seconds’ warning.

But in all fairness I probably make it harder on myself since I now pray the OF like its an EF.

 

[ProVobis]

I was following along at Mass in my little ‘picture’ Missal when I was 7. I knew where we were and the Rosary was never encouraged at Mass by my parents.

I still have my little picture Missal. It’s called “Keeping Close to God.” There is a priest-server picture on each left page and a short prayer on each right page. Tells and shows you exactly where you are in the Mass and all this without hearing a thing. My dad taught me “Dominus vobiscum/Et cum spiritu tuo.”