Latin: Divisive or Unitive

[awsiukiewicz]

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.

 

[awsiukiewicz]

The Latin Liturgy is/was beautiful…it is precise…if you know/understand the language, you can appreciate the fact that there are words that have significance unlike any translation…it’s a ‘root’ language…ancient and beautiful…Vatican II, I understand never insisted that the Vernacular be the norm…Latin was supposed to be maintained as much as possible…just as fasting from eating meat on Friday was never done away with, I have heard it said…and actaully read on a site…someone rather smart offered a good explanation for accepting the Liturgy in the vernacular…they commented that no matter how colorful, or personal the celebrant might make the liturgy, even if there were clowns jumping around on the altar…as long as the words of consecration were maintained…the sacrament was valid…not sure if I agree w/ this…my Pastor this past Sunday…prior to the sign of the cross at the beginning of Mass…made an anouncement regarding how people dressed coming to Mass…and also about personal demeanor…and…that people were not to bring animals to Mass…can you imagine…I live across the street from a Baptist church and I can assure you that I see people showing up for church dressed very well…I served the Latin Mass as a kid, and was still very young when things changed…and I can assure you, and you can give me all the balogna you want, these woule not have been issues then…and…the younger seminarians yearn for the yester year…trust me…just as there are those who enjoy drums, cymbals and electric guitars at Mass…give me Latin, an organ, traditionally Catholic hymns and all the bells and smells…Amen

 

[MarkInOregon]

The Latin Liturgy is/was beautiful…it is precise…if you know/understand the language, you can appreciate the fact that there are words that have significance unlike any translation…it’s a ‘root’ language…ancient and beautiful…Vatican II, I understand never insisted that the Vernacular be the norm…Latin was supposed to be maintained as much as possible…just as fasting from eating meat on Friday was never done away with, I have heard it said…and actaully read on a site…someone rather smart offered a good explanation for accepting the Liturgy in the vernacular…they commented that no matter how colorful, or personal the celebrant might make the liturgy, even if there were clowns jumping around on the altar…as long as the words of consecration were maintained…the sacrament was valid…not sure if I agree w/ this…my Pastor this past Sunday…prior to the sign of the cross at the beginning of Mass…made an anouncement regarding how people dressed coming to Mass…and also about personal demeanor…and…that people were not to bring animals to Mass…can you imagine…I live across the street from a Baptist church and I can assure you that I see people showing up for church dressed very well…I served the Latin Mass as a kid, and was still very young when things changed…and I can assure you, and you can give me all the balogna you want, these woule not have been issues then…and…the younger seminarians yearn for the yester year…trust me…just as there are those who enjoy drums, cymbals and electric guitars at Mass…give me Latin, an organ, traditionally Catholic hymns and all the bells and smells…Amen

We have drifted far from the original question. You are correct that these would not have been issues then–it was a different time. Much has changed in our society in the past 50 years–not much of it for the better from my perspective–and I am not convinced that simply maintaining the Latin Mass would have prevented all the problems we see. Our society has become less formal (I work in a conservative industry and at least on the west coast there are fewer and fewer suits and ties as everyday work attire), it has become less reverent and respectful in general – just look at the disrespect shown to the office of the President, and it has become less accepting of authority in general. The idea of the common good has been sacrificed in the name of personal freedom to do whatever we want. I am not convinced that keeping the Latin Mass would have insulated catholics from the influence of these changes (it would be interesting to see what the Church would look like today had we maintained the Latin Mass and abstinence from meat on Fridays) as there were problems with the celebration of the Mass even then just as there have been throughout history–after all priests are people and the Mass is attended by people. However, this is probably a discussion for another thread.

To be quite truthful – I prefer English to Latin for the celebration of the Mass but I don’t really care what language the Mass is celebrated in. What I want is a reverently celebrated Mass, priests who don’t race through the Mass, and quiet in the sanctuary before and after Mass–and this is not contingent on the language.

What is divisive is not the language but those in either camp who are so convinced of the correctness of their opinion that they would leave the Church over the issue of which language the Mass is celebrated in and that is not the fault of the language.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[ProVobis]

My word yes but at times one would think that only Latin was used—there is almost no acknowledgment that any language but Latin was used. I was speaking in general terms – Greek was the language of currency in the empire at that time and it became the dominate language of the emerging Christianity.

I don’t think the OP intended this thread to go off into a Homer vs Virgil dispute. Or are you actually suggesting everything would have been better off had Latin never been adopted by the Church for its liturgy, documents, identity, and sacredness?

 

[MarkInOregon]

I don’t think the OP intended this thread to go off into a Homer vs Virgil dispute. Or are you actually suggesting everything would have been better off had Latin never been adopted by the Church for its liturgy, documents, identity, and sacredness?

I am sure you are right about the OP’s intent for the thread. But a Homer vs. Virgil dispute? Really? Why is pointing out that the Mass was not always in Latin – always get taken to mean one is against Latin? Why is asking someone to examine how and why the Churches language became Latin – always taken to mean one is against Latin? I fail to see how what I have posted in anyway suggests I hate Latin or that I think the Church would have been better off without it. I fail to understand why some do not want to acknowledge that the earliest Catholics worshiped in their native tougues and that in the region where Christianity started Greek was the language of currency among the languages spoken. This has nothing to do with whether or not Latin should have been retained as the language for the Mass. I just get tired of the idea that the Mass was offically in Latin form the time of Christ until those awful people who were out to wreck the Church changed it in the 1960’s. I just get tired of the idea that if we had just retained the Latin Mass all would be well with the Church. There is a lot more behind the loss of reverence at Mass than a simple change in language–and so I get tired of being told you can’t have a good reverent Mass in a language other than Latin. I would say that of all the changes made to the Mass the change in the language contributed a lot less to the loss of reverence than many of the other changes but as you say – that is a topic for another thread.

In my posts I have acknowledged that personally I prefer to worship in English --this does not mean I am against Latin any more than I am against Portuguese or German–it is simply a preference. I have also acknowledged that I see pro’s and con’s to using Latin for the Mass. I have not addressed or questioned what the Churches official language should be.

In many ways trying to have a conversation with certain proponents of Latin (and I do not imply anything about you when I say this) is rather like trying to have a conversation with those who think the KJV of the Bible is the only one that God inspired. If you suggest that the Mass was ever said in language other than Latin – you are attacked and your words twisted – you are accused of hating reverence and silence etc. It is simply crazy and frustrating. I mean from what I have posted earlier you come up with the twisted idea that I may somehow be suggesting the Church would have been better off had it never adopted Latin–I am simply puzzled by this. I don’t think that I have ever heard anyone suggest this before and it seems an odd accusation.

And now I apologize in advance for wandering so far from the OP’s question and for letting my frustration get the better of me.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[ProVobis]

Why is pointing out that the Mass was not always in Latin – always get taken to mean one is against Latin? Why is asking someone to examine how and why the Churches language became Latin – always taken to mean one is against Latin? I fail to see how what I have posted in anyway suggests I hate Latin or that I think the Church would have been better off without it. I fail to understand why some do not want to acknowledge that the earliest Catholics worshiped in their native tougues and that in the region where Christianity started Greek was the language of currency among the languages spoken.

I don’t know whom you’re talking with but I certainly haven’t heard any Latin Mass advocate to be even slightly bothered by the Greek (Kyrie eleison, Sabaoth, etc.) in the liturgy. Can you say the same for those who just can’t do without an English (or Spanish) Mass? Then when you state that you prefer other than a Latin Mass, you use the “Greek came first” argument to back your position. Fine, then let’s see you push for that then. Personally I would have no objection to any ancient immutable Christian language to be used in at least part of the Mass. There’s at least some direct connection to Christ there.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

There is a lot more behind the loss of reverence at Mass than a simple change in language–and so I get tired of being told you can’t have a good reverent Mass in a language other than Latin. I would say that of all the changes made to the Mass the change in the language contributed a lot less to the loss of reverence than many of the other changes but as you say – that is a topic for another thread.

Yes, reverence is not langauge bound and I have been to many vernacular reverent Masses. During the experimentation of the 60s & 70s there was indeed what seemed to some to be lack of reverence. But as I recall it was in an attempt to awaken a more celebratory aspect. Anyone been to a charismatic Mass?

Som eof the best Masses I have been to were monastic and vernacular. The music seemed to be the key as well as the presider. Langauge had little to do with it. The Latin Mass, however, is more than just a langauge issue. It is a very formal approach to liturgy. That formality has been relaxed in the OF. In most cases that is good and appropriate, in others it may be abused.

 

[ProVobis]

In my posts I have acknowledged that personally I prefer to worship in English --this does not mean I am against Latin any more than I am against Portuguese or German–it is simply a preference.

I see it not as a preference but a complete change in philosophy. Certainly one who prefers a German Mass to a Latin Mass (or a Greek Mass, for that matter), even though he speaks or understands none of them, doesn’t subscribe to what Cardinal Arinze relates when he says:

In religious matters, people tend to hold on to what they received from the beginning, how their earliest predecessors articulated their religion and prayed. Words and formulae used by earlier generations are dear to those who today inherit from them. While a religion is of course not identified with a language, how it understands itself can have an affective link with a particular linguistic expression in its classical period of growth.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I don’t know whom you’re talking with but I certainly haven’t heard any Latin Mass advocate to be even slightly bothered by the Greek (Kyrie eleison, Sabaoth, etc.) in the liturgy. Can you say the same for those who just can’t do without an English (or Spanish) Mass? Then when you state that you prefer other than a Latin Mass, you use the “Greek came first” argument to back your position. Fine, then let’s see you push for that then. Personally I would have no objection to any ancient immutable Christian language to be used in at least part of the Mass. There’s at least some direct connection to Christ there.

I confess I don’t understand you–are you purposefully not reading or misrepresenting what I am saying? First–where did I say that Latin Mass advocates are bothered by Greek in the liturgy or even imply it? My only real complaint is that it can at times be almost impossible to have a discussion with some of them and to be quite truthful I am finding it hard to have a discussion with you as you seem to state/imply that I am saying things that I am not and then attack that position. Second–I did not use a Greek came first position to justify my preference for to worship in English–as it is just that a preference and as such does not need to be justified. And actually I have stated that Greek was the language of currency at the time among the many languages used–not that it was first. I have not attacked nor am I bothered by those who prefer to worship in Latin or any other language for that matter. You, however, seem quite bothered by my preference for to worship in English and I don’t understand that. I have no problem with you attending a Latin Mass.

Unlike many here I am not pushing for any particular language–I am baffled as to why you think I am. Have you actually read what I am saying? My response has been to those who seem to think/imply that the Mass has always been in Latin and therefore should not have been changed–I have simply pointed out that it was not always only in Latin. I fail to see how simply pointing this out is advocating for a postion or even trying to justify a position.

The Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

I see it not as a preference but a complete change in philosophy. Certainly one who prefers a German Mass to a Latin Mass (or a Greek Mass, for that matter), even though he speaks or understands none of them, doesn’t subscribe to what Cardinal Arinze relates when he says:

It is not a complete change in philosophy and that is not what Cadinal Arinze is saying.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[EphelDuath]

My response has been to those who seem to think/imply that the Mass has always been in Latin and therefore should not have been changed–I have simply pointed out that it was not always only in Latin.

I haven’t seen anybody dispute this.

I say this not in reference to you, but to many people I have met in real life and read comments by on Facebook: there seems to be this misconception that Latinists are uneducated fanatics when it comes to tradition. There was recently an image on Catholic Memes on FB that said, “What if I told you; you don’t have to understand Latin to attend a Latin Mass?” and the majority of the comments were something along the lines of “Jesus didn’t speak Latin”. Like, you think we don’t know that? :banghead:

 

[ProVobis]

It is not a complete change in philosophy and that is not what Cadinal Arinze is saying.

Then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Godspeed.

 

[ProVobis]

the majority of the comments were something along the lines of “Jesus didn’t speak Latin”.

But they have no problem with Mary and saints speaking and understanding 7000 modern languages. Go figure.

 

[Aramis]

I see it not as a preference but a complete change in philosophy. Certainly one who prefers a German Mass to a Latin Mass (or a Greek Mass, for that matter), even though he speaks or understands none of them, doesn’t subscribe to what Cardinal Arinze relates when he says:

Cardinal Arinze may oversimplify - the reality of the US is that religious mobility is extremely high. Even within the Catholic Church - my parish is made up of about 1/2 translates from the Roman Rite or Western Protestantism who have changed rites formally, and another 1/6th who are in still roman.

I read something about it being about 40% of the US has switched religions… but that was a few years back.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I haven’t seen anybody dispute this.

I say this not in reference to you, but to many people I have met in real life and read comments by on Facebook: there seems to be this misconception that Latinists are uneducated fanatics when it comes to tradition. There was recently an image on Catholic Memes on FB that said, “What if I told you; you don’t have to understand Latin to attend a Latin Mass?” and the majority of the comments were something along the lines of “Jesus didn’t speak Latin”. Like, you think we don’t know that? :banghead:

Possibly but I think the first post I responded to in this thread was one that said the Mass was always in Latin. I think I responded by asking if it really was.

Your other observation is interesting as I have always thought they were well educated and I am not worried about the fanatic part–as we should all be fanatics with regard to Christ and his Church–is there anything more important than doing the will of the Father? Anyway I can’t believe I have spent as much time on this thread as I have considering it does nothing to further the faith or to make me a better Catholic–so I guess confession is needed.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

I see it not as a preference but a complete change in philosophy. Certainly one who prefers a German Mass to a Latin Mass (or a Greek Mass, for that matter), even though he speaks or understands none of them, doesn’t subscribe to what Cardinal Arinze relates when he says:

Cardinal Arinze also has this to say:

"In the liturgical life of the Church, some very good developments have taken place since Sacrosanctum Concilium was promulgated. Let us begin by listing some of them. In this way we thank God who guides His Church all through the ages. We also express gratitude to all those who have had a hand in this liturgical promotion, from those who worked on the liturgical texts, to the bishops, priests and members of liturgical committees or commissions like yourselves.

Pope John Paul II, in his Apostolic Letter, Vicesimus Quintus Annus, December 4, 1988, in commemeration of twenty-five years of Sacrosanctum Concilium, lists five of these positive results (cf 12). The first is the place given to the Bible in the Liturgy. *Sacrosanctum Concilium *insisted that the table of God’s Word is to be made more abundantly available to the people of God in the Liturgy. If we reflect back to the past forty years, we see how the renewed liturgical rites have been made much richer with the biblical texts. In the Mass, the lectionary is so arranged as to cover most of the Bible in a three-year Sunday reading and a two-year weekday lessons program. The responsorial psalms help to elucidate the readings. The sacramental rites and the celebrations of the sacramentals are suitably fitted with rich biblical texts. So is the Liturgy of the Hours. In this way not only are the faithful exposed, as it were, to a greater part of Holy Scripture so as to become more familiar with it, but each community has the opportunity, in the specific setting of the liturgical celebration, to enter ever more deeply at all levels of the human person into the great mystery of God’s transforming love which the Scripture proclaims. In country after country, immense effort is undertaken to provide the Christian people with translations of the Bible.

A second happy development is the sustained effort to translate the various liturgical texts into the current language of the people and also to face the challenges of adapting liturgical celebration to the culture of each people.

A third reason for gratitude is the ‘increased participation of the faithful by prayer and song, gesture and silence, in the Eucharist and the other sacraments’ (VQA 12). One has only to compare the way the average parish community takes part in the Sunday Mass today to the way it did fifty years ago.

Continued

 

[MarkInOregon]

Continued:

"We are also encouraged because of the ‘ministries exercised by lay people and the responsibilities that they have assumed in virtue of the common priesthood into which they have been initiated through Baptism and Confirmation’ (VQA 12). Very many happy developments have really taken place on this point.

Lastly, and as a summary of the above four areas, we must thank God ‘for the radiant vitality of so many Christian communities, a vitality drawn from the wellspring of the Liturgy’ (VQA 12).

Each of these five positive results offers us reasons for joy and encouragement. But each also assigns us a task, poses us a challenge and enjoins on us to see that the developments remain truly positive, according to the desires and directives of the Council, and of the Pope and the Bishops who guide us today and tomorrow in the Church that Christ founded. How this applies to each of these five developments will be the focus of the rest of this paper." From Cardinal Arinze’s address to FDLC Some Highlights of the Liturgical Renewal Initiated by Sacrosanctum Concilium October 8, 2003

The rest of the paper is well worth reading–because it does highlight and warn against many of the abuses often complained about on CAF.

So while we disagree regarding the change in philosophy–given what I have read by Cardinal Arinze and in light of his comments above–I am not sure there is a change in philosophy.

I wish you well.

The peace of Christ,
Mark