Latin in mass?

[Tom_LaFaver]

Sometimes parts of the Gloria are sung in Latin. I have not been able to determine why. Sometimes the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy) and Angus Dei are sung in Latin. Again, I cannot figure out why.

Has there been something issued from Rome that we use more Latin During mass in the U.S.?

 

[Penitant]

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM:

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

It looks like your priest is simply trying to do what Vatican II asked for. Deo gratias.

Pax Tecum,
Zach

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

The Constitution on the Liturgy of Vatican II states that “All the faithful should be able to sing or say in Latin the parts of the Mass which concern them” (Art. 54)

The beautiful thing about the Latin language is that it never changes meaning, unlike English (take the word “gay,” for instance). 'Sanctus" meant the same thing in the 5th Century as it does today. Latin unites us with the Church around the world. It means the same thing in every country.

 

[WhollyRoamin]

I think you’ve got a pretty typical parish. The Catholic Church in America is starting to “trad-up”, albeit slowly. Expect more Latin, expect less Haugen. Lord willing.

 

[LaRoza]

Sometimes parts of the Gloria are sung in Latin. I have not been able to determine why. Sometimes the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy) and Angus Dei are sung in Latin. Again, I cannot figure out why.

Has there been something issued from Rome that we use more Latin During mass in the U.S.?

Au contraire, Latin is the language of the Church and the Mass is in Latin, with translations into the vernacular. There is no reason why Latin should not be be used by default, except when vernacular is needed (like for priests who were unable to study it, or for missionaries). Having a united Church is important. Vatican II was the excuse to use the vernacular by default, not the reason.

I don’t mind the vernacular, but having One Mass without any fear of translations issues would be good for the Church.

 

[Tom_LaFaver]

There is no reason why Latin should not be be used by default, except when vernacular is needed (like for priests who were unable to study it, or for missionaries).
I don’t mind the vernacular, but having One Mass without any fear of translations issues would be good for the Church.

I understand that Latin is the language of the church. It was my understanding that Vatican II has us using the vernacular so EVERYONE that doesn’t understand Latin (the majority of people, myself included) could understand what was being said. IMHO, even if one were to memorize the Latin songs and responses, but did not understand what they were saying the mass would be less meaningful.

 

[LaRoza]

I understand that Latin is the language of the church. It was my understanding that Vatican II has us using the vernacular so EVERYONE that doesn’t understand Latin (the majority of people, myself included) could understand what was being said. IMHO, even if one were to memorize the Latin songs and responses, but did not understand what they were saying the mass would be less meaningful.

No, VII doesn’t have us use it. The Pauline mass was a new liturgy, but still meant to be said in the same basic manner.

And you do not loose the meaning in Latin. For those who attend the Latin mass, the meaning is known, even in those who do not speak Latin.

Also, at the NO mass I attend, comprehension of words and responses don’t increase in English (native language here). It can be rote in either. Understanding transcends the words used.

 

[Sarabande]

Also, at the NO mass I attend, comprehension of words and responses don’t increase in English (native language here). It can be rote in either. Understanding transcends the words used.

You know, that can be so true. Plenty of people I know, myself included, have at one time or another when we weren’t totally in focus to just go through the motions without even knowing what just happened or comprehending what we just said.

When you are in the right frame of mind, spiritually, that transcends any language - and I’ve attended plenty of masses in other languages other than my own tongue. The only thing that I feel different for me is that I can’t understand the homily and sometimes the readings (although in the Latin masses I’ve attended, they will do those in English and sometimes the readings in both Latin and English). Other than that, the rest of the mass is the same for me spiritually.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I don’t know about the Vatican, but I know or diocese was supposed use more Latin. This was a few years ago and during the time when I worked weekends on 2nd and 3rd shifts, so I never new the whole story. If so my parish has not done any part of the Sanctus, Gloria or Agnus Dei since we changed priests in 2005. A neighboring parish does say part of the Agnus Dei in Latin

 

[FrDavid96]

I understand that Latin is the language of the church. It was my understanding that Vatican II has us using the vernacular so EVERYONE that doesn’t understand Latin (the majority of people, myself included) could understand what was being said. IMHO, even if one were to memorize the Latin songs and responses, but did not understand what they were saying the mass would be less meaningful.

Tom,
What you say very much makes you a representative of the “average” Catholic. Most Catholics think (or have thought) that Vatican II “has us using the vernacular”, but that isn’t the case. It’s one of the most serious misunderstandings of VII and misrepresentations of the Council’s teaching that has been perpetuated for years. Vatican II allows for parts of the Mass to be said in the vernacular (even the entire Mass) so that more people might understand what’s being said, but that is not the same thing as saying that Vatican II requires it–that’s the part that often gets repeated so much that people begin to think that the Council actually said that.

 

[maize]

question: are all priests trained to do both forms of mass?

 

[LaRoza]

question: are all priests trained to do both forms of mass?

No. Both forms are not that hard to learn (in English or Latin) though. A priest could learn the TLM from a DVD. The FSSP has just the materials for it as well: store.fraternitypublications.com/prtrki.html

The mass forms are different, but they are (I believe) they are essentially the same. A TLM mass could be poorly said just as NO mass, but I think the novelties that came with VII lead to more abuses with the NO mass (although I don’t fault the mass itself)

 

[Brendan]

question: are all priests trained to do both forms of mass?

Priests are required to be trained to say the Ordinary Form ( post Vat-II) Mass in Latin.

They are not required to learn to say the Extraordinary Form ( Tridentine) Mass. But a priest in our diocese (actually, from our parish) was ordained last year. He spend two weeks of the time between his Ordination and his first assignment at St. John Cantius in Chicago learning the Extraordinary Form.

And two of our Auxilliary bishops did likewise.

 

[Brendan]

I. It was my understanding that Vatican II has us using the vernacular so EVERYONE that doesn’t understand Latin .

Not quite true, Vatican II allowed ( but did not require) the use of the vernacular.

What it did require was that if the vernacular be used, the faithful also learn sufficient Latin so that they could make the responses in Latin too.

1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

**Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin **those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

Constitution on the Divine Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concillum) #54

The Church is now ‘catching up’ to what Vatican II required, namely, that Latin also be taught and used.

 

[Brendan]

Sometimes parts of the Gloria are sung in Latin. I have not been able to determine why. Sometimes the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy) and Angus Dei are sung in Latin. Again, I cannot figure out why.

Has there been something issued from Rome that we use more Latin During mass in the U.S.?

Yes, it was a letter from Pope Paul VI in 1974 that provided the bishops with a booklet of standard chants ( Jubilate Deo) and requested that they be used to ensure that the faithful may be able to sing in Latin.

It’s been awhile, but it’s nice to see we have a crop of bishops who will listen to what the Pope (even dead ones) instructed.

Here is the letter BTW,

adoremus.org/VoluntatiObsequens.html

 

[japhy]

It was my understanding that Vatican II has us using the vernacular so EVERYONE that doesn’t understand Latin (the majority of people, myself included) could understand what was being said.

But you can understand what’s being said even if the Mass itself is in Latin. Many people before Vatican II knew what was being said, because either a) their parents, pastors, friends, etc. told/taught them, or b) they were using a personal missal which had the Latin on one side and their vernacular on the other. So even when they were speaking the Latin, they knew what they were saying. Which brings me to your next point:

IMHO, even if one were to memorize the Latin songs and responses, but did not understand what they were saying the mass would be less meaningful.

Do you know what you’re saying now? (Which is a somewhat rhetorical question… do people understand what they’re saying in the Mass nowadays? Do they know what the Creed means, for example? Do they KNOW what the words they’re saying MEAN?)

If you do understand what you’re saying, it’s only two quick steps to saying it in Latin and knowing what you’re saying: 1) learn the Latin words, 2) learn how to pronounce them.

And you say “memorize” the songs and responses. Tell me, do you still require a booklet to know how to make the standard responses during Mass? You know when to say “Amen” and “Thanks be to God” and “We lift them up the Lord”, right? You’ve learned them by now. Call it “memorization” or whatever you want, you know it. “Memorization” isn’t a bad thing.

 

[VociMike]

This is not by any means a denunciation of Mass in the vernacular (heck, last weekend I watched the Pope say Mass in Italian ), but there are a couple of benefits to Mass in Latin that are near to my heart.

1. People are not at the mercy of a translating committee with an agenda, as clearly happened with the current English translation. Maybe that won’t happen ever again, I don’t know. But it harmed the liturgy and the Church.
2. There has been ample time to build an extraordinary treasure of sacred music in Latin. I doubt anybody would seriously make the same claim regarding Catholic sacred music in English (or any other post Vatican II vernacular). And just as bad, when translations do change (as they must for any living language), the current music must go in the trash bin and new music must be written, or the current music must be pushed and pulled like taffy to fit the new translation (probably badly). This pretty much guarantees that, barring exraordinary circumstances, the sacred music of the vernacular will always be at a lower level that the sacred music in Latin.

 

[Patchunky]

Au contraire, Latin is the language of the Church and the Mass is in Latin

Actually, Latin is only ONE of the languages of the Church. It is the language of the Western or Latin Church.

The Eastern Church uses Aramaic, Greek and Old Church Slavonic.:byzsoc:

Hope this helps…

 

[LaRoza]

Actually, Latin is only ONE of the languages of the Church. It is the language of the Western or Latin Church.

The Eastern Church uses Aramaic, Greek and Old Church Slavonic.:byzsoc:

Hope this helps…

Ecclesiastical Latin is the language of the Catholic Church, under the Pope.

The different rites use different languages, but the Church uses Latin.

 

[PJM]

Sometimes parts of the Gloria are sung in Latin. I have not been able to determine why. Sometimes the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy) and Angus Dei are sung in Latin. Again, I cannot figure out why.

Has there been something issued from Rome that we use more Latin During mass in the U.S.?

FYI

Latin is the “common language” of the Roman Catholic Church.

Despite Vatican II’s authorization for use of the venacular languages of the various countries, Latin remains the “tie- that binds us” all togeather.

Even when V II authorized our English language, is was speciffically to not be used exclusively, and the Prayers you mention were to be sung in Latin.

With everything in the venacualr, it is easy to lose touch with our past and our very roots. But even more importantly, exclusive use of the vencaular, tends to lessen the focus on the Sacrifice aspects of the Mass.

I agree this need NOT be the case. By the effects of the NO on Catholic Faith, beliefs and understanding have suffered and withered greatly.

For example in 1965 nearly 70 of “all Catholics” attended Mass at least on Sunday’s and Holyday’s. In 2007 the Pew Report puts the current number at a dismal 25%.

Rome, to their credit is trying to put “the geni” at least partly back into the bottle, and reintroduce a sense of piety and holiness, back into todays Liturgy.

We should support and pray that they will be successful in doing so. A lot of souls continue to be at risk!