Latin: Divisive or Unitive

[Marie5890]

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)?

To be honest, I think it’s both. Why? Because I have talked with a variety of people on the subject. Some love it and some dont. Some find it enhances their worship, others find it very distracting and shut down. They dont feel it encourages a sense of community worship

People are not made from cookie cutters. There are different temperments, different characteristics.

And no, I dont think the default response of “lack of catechesis” is the reason. For some perhaps, but not for all. People really are that diverse in how they react to the same scenerio.

 

[Lormar]

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.”

My husband was 40 and a Lutheran when we got married. Shortly after we married and he converted, we began going to the SSPX. He had a missal with pictures. He followed the Mass by looking at those pictures. Then, he started reading the Mass prayers with the Latin/English missal.

 

[ProVobis]

My husband was 40 and a Lutheran when we got married. Shortly after we married and he converted, we began going to the SSPX. He had a missal with pictures. He followed the Mass by looking at those pictures. Then, he started reading the Mass prayers with the Latin/English missal.

My first real missal was the St. Joseph Missal. This is the one which has the propers only in English, which I found to be rather useless in trying to follow the Mass. Give me Latin or pictures rather than the English.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Don’t know what to tell you. Having a truly interactive bilingual community without common worship is, except in somewhat extraordinary circumstances, just a facade. There is just two communities that occupy the same space. Language barriers are hard to overcome.

I am not sure that the use of Latin changes this.

Who says you have to be aurally fluent in Latin to understand the liturgy? If you’re properly catechized then you already know what’s going on, even if you can’t translate the words in your head on the spot. If you’re improperly catechized then you don’t know what’s going on, even if the words happen to be in your language.

It is one thing to know intellectually what is going on–to understand the liturgy. It is quite another to fully participate and offer your assent–when you don’t exactly know what you are saying or what is being said exactly. In some ways it becomes simply mouthing words–with an idea of what you are saying. For me it is a distraction and it undermines my ability to truly worship God at mass. I don’t wish to simply understand what is going on at mass–I want to pray the prayers from my heart, I want to worship God with my heart and for me personally–latin detracts from my ability to do this fully.

I can see both pros and cons to the use of Latin – and I will worship in the language the Church proscibes for me to use. I am not going to fight over it–that is what is divisive. I simply observe that for me it detracts from my ability to properly worship God at mass.

Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[ProVobis]

My husband was 40 and a Lutheran when we got married. Shortly after we married and he converted, we began going to the SSPX. He had a missal with pictures. He followed the Mass by looking at those pictures. Then, he started reading the Mass prayers with the Latin/English missal.

I guess I always thought of the Latin/English missals as bikes with training wheels. At some point you’d think the training wheels would come off. But in our case, they threw the whole bicycle away.

 

[Pulvis]

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.

And sadly Seamus, that is the real problem. How does one close pandora’s box? How does one restore forty to fifty years of poor catechesis, mis-applied Conciliar Documents, and outright excess perpetrated by those with a “different” agenda?

 

[DavidLukenbill]

What matters is that even if we disagree on minor outward details like that, that we still agree theologically.

Exactly, I attend both forms and the point is attending and participating in the Mass, and the choices people make about which they prefer are simply, their choice, and the Church is universal enough to embrace both.

Regarding the initial question if the use of Latin is divisive or unitive, the answer depends on the answerer. Those preferring the Latin Mass probably feel it to be unitive, while those preferring the vernacular probably see the Latin as divisive, but again, our universal Church can embrace both as it embraces many other linguistic forms of the Mass throughout the world.

 

[ProVobis]

and I will worship in the language the Church proscibes for me to use.

Mark, you must mean something else here.

proscribes
Verb

1.Forbid, esp. by law.
2.Denounce or condemn.

prescribes maybe?

Just trying to help you out.

 

[ProVobis]

Regarding the initial question if the use of Latin is divisive or unitive, the answer depends on the answerer. Those preferring the Latin Mass probably feel it to be unitive, while those preferring the vernacular probably see the Latin as divisive, but again, our universal Church can embrace both as it embraces many other linguistic forms of the Mass throughout the world.

I think you left out the third possibility, which is probably more prevalent. Two competing vernaculars within the same parish or even in the same liturgy. Didn’t the vernacular framers see that coming?

 

[DavidLukenbill]

I think you left out the third possibility, which is probably more prevalent. Two competing vernaculars within the same parish or even in the same liturgy. Didn’t the vernacular framers see that coming?

I can see that being problematic, but from my personal experience, the Latin Mass I attend is at a parish soley devoted to it and the vernacular Mass is at a parish solely devoted to that, so it’s not an issue.

 

[Phemie]

Originally Posted by ProVobis forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I think you left out the third possibility, which is probably more prevalent. Two competing vernaculars within the same parish or even in the same liturgy. Didn’t the vernacular framers see that coming?

I can see that being problematic, but from my personal experience, the Latin Mass I attend is at a parish soley devoted to it and the vernacular Mass is at a parish solely devoted to that, so it’s not an issue.

Take it from me, when you have two vernaculars in one parish you usually have two parishes in practice.

For a few decades I worshipped at military parishes. Usually there was an attempt to be inclusive of both French and English families. There were two approaches: One Mass in French, one in English or a bilingual Mass.

The bilingual Mass satisfied about 2 % of the parishioners, those who were fluently bilingual. Those who weren’t fluent hated it and in many cases it drove the English speakers to other, non-military parishes.

Two Masses ensured that ‘never the twain shall meet’. You might have had one parish council but you had two physical parishes.

 

[otjm]

Absolutely, it is unitive!

Just like English is the Lingua Franca in the world, Latin can be in the Liturgy. Apart from all the theology and other aspects behind its use there, of course.

Now, we have German Mass, Polish Mass, Kroatian Mass, every language one could think of, and you need to choose which one to go to, if you want to understand. All of that could be eliminated if Latin got back to its former place: You’d have to learn only a bit of one language (and really, it’s not that difficult). Those parts of the Mass that stay the same (Words of Consecration, etc.) won’t pose any problems, since firstly, everyone knows what’s going on there anyway, and secondly, they are not that much to read.

Latin even used to be the language of universities across Europe, you could go to any country and study at any university: All would share one language.

You are right that it was the language of the universities; that would make it the language of the elite, as precious few people ever made it to university. Perhaps that is best not a path to go down.

But you are right on point that a goodly amount of the Mass looks the same everywhere.

Perhaps the question is, what percentage of people travel all the time? I have not been out of country since 1970, except to go fishing in Canada a few times. Many of my friends have been out of country a few times, and usually for no more that maybe two weeks. It would appear that for the large part, Mass in other languages is a non-starter.

 

[ProVobis]

The bilingual Mass satisfied about 2 % of the parishioners, those who were fluently bilingual. Those who weren’t fluent hated it and in many cases it drove the English speakers to other, non-military parishes.

Here in the U.S. the Anglophones even complain when the priest speaks with a foreign or strange dialect. In my own territorial parish, I can see the unease and stirring around when the Polish priest says the Mass in English. In a way, I don’t blame them. I think I’d understand this priest better if he were to speak in Polish. And then they pressed one of the Deacons to give the gospel at the Spanish Mass. Boy, does he ever struggle with it and you can hear the impatient stirring around in the pews.

 

[otjm]

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.

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.

I happen to have been an altar boy in the 1950’s, so I actually know what was happening then. So I am older, and it is not a stereotype. I attended two parishes - one in what was the beginning of the suburbs, and the other in the country. In the country church, people were starting to obtain college degrees, and it was a major change - people who were born in the late 1800’s and the early 1900’s simply never had an opportunity to go to college; and many of them were lucky to make it through high school. My mother had 70 first cousins in the area of that rural parish, so I knew people who were my grand parents age as well as my parents age. In the suburban parish a number of people had a missal, but by no means the majority.

And through the years I have asked any number of them what they thought was either the most interesting or the greatest change, and to a person they all said Mass in English.

your experience and mine are quite different; I am never lost in the Mass (and I have ADHD, so that is something I have to deal with in terms of staying focused. And for that matter, I was never lost in the Mass prior to the implementation of the OF. Then, again, I attended seminary in college, and that might make a difference.

You are right - people are not stupid. They have some idea of what is going on - and they did then too. However, unlike QuestingKnight’s comment that people are supposed to “attend”, the Church has said (including both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16) that the Church wants people to participate.

Perhaps that is what was underneath all those uneducated, simple people’s response that what they thought was best was the change to the vernacular.

But then, again, they were just simple uneducated farmers, so what would they know.

 

[felsguy]

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.

Lucky for you. Not to hijack this thread but I would love to intoduce you to the 3 and 4 year old “little dears” I encounter every Sunday.

.

 

[Khalid]

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

Greek is more difficult that Latin in grammar and in alphabet. The Latin alphabet is widespread today, and is relatively simple. The Greek is not, and ancient Greek has a system of accent marks - any accented language is harder to read than unaccented one. Greek also has more sounds that are unfamiliar to modern Westerners, hard to replicate, as we’re familiar with the sounds of Latin through the sounds of the Romance languages. Not to mention Greek grammar can be accused of being overly precise, whereas Latin grammar really doesn’t matter, and can be very sloppy while still comprehensible (such as the Vulgate Latin compared to Tully).

As one classicist said, “The Greek is a language of philosophers, suited to argumentation. To say, ‘the sky is blue’ in Greek is an invitation to debate. Latin is a language of empire and emperors, suited to decree: to say, ‘the sky is blue’ in Latin is an edict, a close to all debate.” I suppose that’s where Roma locuta est, causa finita est and the papacy comes from, whereas from Greek come the squabbling Patriarchates of the East.

Hebrew is immeasurably more difficult than either Latin or Greek.

 

[TimSpalding]

Well, I presume you’ve also learned both, as have I. So I’m not sure why anyone should believe one or the other of us. But I would maintain that they are about equal in difficulty. The Greek alphabet terrifies people who haven’t learned it, but it stops being a problem after a week or two of study. It take years and years to get good at either language. After five years of Greek, you’re hardly worried about the alphabet!

As for accents, there’s no real differences. In both languages accents depend upon quantity—long or shortness of the vowel. Here Greek has the advantage, as long and short o and e are different letters and accent is actually physically marked, allowing you to infer the quantity of vowels in many cases. In Latin there’s no guide at all; you just have to know.

As for pronunciation, the standard pronunciation has no foreign sounds whatsoever. Sure, if you want to speak it as contemporary Greeks do, you have to twist your mouth around a bit—a lot less than, say, French. But the Erasmian pronunciation has nothing going on that Latin doesn’t have.

As for your notion that Greek grammar is precise and Latin can be sloppy, well, I think that’s just bonkers. Grammar is never sloppy or precise, really—even a Creole has a complex grammar. But granting the concept to some degree it’s clear that both have highly developed and more simple, popular forms. The developed would be, say, Cicero vs. Demosthenes. The simpler would be the Vulgate versus the Greek Bible. Both come off as simple and rough if your yardstick are Cicero and Demosthenes—or, as Nietzsche put it “Holy Ghost wrote bad Greek!”

As for the notion that Greek is “an invitation to debate,” the Romans are soldiers and all that, well, I think you’ve imbibed some rather stale and silly stereotypes. I’m not surprised a Classicist said it once—Classics used to be the study of a very narrow period and literature. Having been in a Classics PhD program recently, I can tell you if anyone had said something like that we’d assume he was doing a commedy skit.

The Romans were great soldiers, but so was Alexander, and the Byzantine Empire for all its depictions as weak, survived for more than 1,000 years. (It didn’t do so by inviting people to debate.) Greek writing survives from Linear B to the present, Latin for a little less. Neither have deep, essential characteristics.

 

[Cat]

Some of the preference for or against a more intellectual or “high” Mass could be regional. In our city, there is a 25% drop-out rate (high school). 61% of the children in public schools are eligible (and receive) school breakfast and school lunches.

Across the United States, the average reading level for adults is 6th grade. That’s a lot of people who read BELOW 6th grade. For reference, Rowling’s Harry Potter novels are written at the 6th grade level. She knew what she was doing, didn’t she?

I think people who could read were more intelligent in the past, and even people who couldn’t read were more intelligent listeners than people are today. Take a look at the McGuffey Readers, once used in all the schools in the U.S. Most of the lessons in those books are advanced in reading level and many adults wouldn’t understand them today! Read the Little House books–the type of things that Laura and her sisters learned in school would be considered “gifted” level today! And remember, the Little House books were written by a woman who didn’t even graduate from high school! (She also wrote for her local newspaper for years.)

But nowadays, for a variety of reasons, people have shorter attention spans and less capacity to understand and comprehend. I know there are exceptions, but we have to think of the majority, not the exceptions. Most kids are NOT homeschooled by loving and firm parents. Most attend a public school and we all know the average scores on standardized tests across the country–dismal compared to the rest of the world.

It seems to me that Holy Mother Church is incredibly wise to allow a variety of Mass options, especially in the United States, because we are a variety of people.

Some people believe that the best way to raise people up is to give them something (e.g., Mass in Latin) that is so high above them that they have to reach up for it and climb to get to it.

I don’t think I agree with that approach. I don’t think we should dumb the Mass (or anything) down, but I think a lot of people today have so much to do and are so exhausted that they get discouraged when they are told, “Look–there is something really good, but you have to work to get it.” I think a lot of people will just say, “Thanks, but no thanks. I really don’t have the energy.”

Perhaps in the past, having the same words around the world for Mass was unifying. I don’t think it is now. This is a different era. We can’t go back in time and make society the way it was back then. We’re a restless, irritable, easily-distracted, exhausted, wired people, and we need to be met where we are right now, not where we should be, or where we would have been in the past…

 

[ProVobis]

Than what, the Greek? Why not use that? You don’t know either, I’ll hazard.

So, Kyrie eleison (or Κύριε, ἐλέησον) is unifying, no? Where is that in the English (or Spanish or Polish) Mass?

 

[Baelor]

Well, I presume you’ve also learned both, as have I. So I’m not sure why anyone should believe one or the other of us. But I would maintain that they are about equal in difficulty. The Greek alphabet terrifies people who haven’t learned it, but it stops being a problem after a week or two of study. It take years and years to get good at either language. After five years of Greek, you’re hardly worried about the alphabet!

I suppose I do not agree with either you or Khalid.

Latin is generally easier to learn than Greek. Even for students of Latin, for whom that language may be the first exposure to a nominally inflected language, Greek is still often more difficult.

As for accents, there’s no real differences. In both languages accents depend upon quantity—long or shortness of the vowel.

I am a bit confused. Accents in Greek are pitch accents, unlike the Latin stress accent. Latin requires no guide whatsoever – if the penultimate syllable is long, it is stressed. If it is short, the antepenult is stressed. I have never met a single student who has had a problem with this, even if they did not learn Latin with macrons.

Greek, on the other hand, has certain classes of words with similar accent placement, but there is no analogous way of determining accent placement. There is only a method to determine what accents may be placed where. This is clearly more difficult, since the accent must be learned with the word. Perhaps your Greek instruction has hit upon some insight that mine did not, but to me it is not at all obvious that the proper form is ἀρετἠ. Latin avoids this issue completely by having a totally standard accent determination.

As for pronunciation, the standard pronunciation has no foreign sounds whatsoever. Sure, if you want to speak it as contemporary Greeks do, you have to twist your mouth around a bit—a lot less than, say, French. But the Erasmian pronunciation has nothing going on that Latin doesn’t have.

Classical Greek requires differentiation between aspirated consonants and non-aspirates, something English does not require in its writing. Vocalizing the aspirated p versus the non-aspirated p is a challenge for many students.

As for your notion that Greek grammar is precise and Latin can be sloppy, well, I think that’s just bonkers. Grammar is never sloppy or precise, really—even a Creole has a complex grammar. But granting the concept to some degree it’s clear that both have highly developed and more simple, popular forms.

I agree that Latin is not sloppy. It is highly regular and rigid.

This is why Greek is more difficult. The morphology is objectively more complex, requiring more memorization. Latin requires only four principal parts for verbs; Greek requires six. While totally irregular verbs occur in Latin (fero, sum, volo), many more occur in Greek, and there are more verbs with unconnected principal parts.