Latin? In MY Mass?

[ProVobis]

I’ve explained in earlier posts that it’s difficult to overcome 47 years of evangelical Protestantism and become a Latin lover.

That was my point. Yet the Old Latin Mass was something that Agatha Christie and other Protestants (and some Catholics) petititioned Paul VI to keep. There are non-Catholics who use Latin in their law practices. There is Latin on the US. dollar bill. There’s no protest there. Just by Catholics in the Catholic Mass and that’s a tough one to figure.

I have been taught all my life that all languages are beautiful and equal.

As a bilinguist and a computer programmer learned in seven languages, I definitely don’t agree. Each language has a different nature and associates with different customs, politics, and applications. Languages are not interchangeable, even in physics where and when you have translations of different coordinate systems. (Of course, these are done by computers now which is something one cannot easily do with translating Latin/Greek into modern languages, other than create gibberish.) Yet the average churchgoer expects the Church to provide a perfect and on-the-spot translation of its liturgical texts for their convenience. Is it worth centuries and millennia of carefully prepared Latin documents and Latin liturgical texts to be compromised in such a fashion?

On the contrary, it makes me want to avoid traditional Masses even more

But we’re not talking traditional Masses necessarily. We’re talking preserving Latin in the Latin Rite. (It’s an old Catholic identity tool, which perhaps new converts may not understand.) Reinforcing the now more convenient all-vernacular-all-the-time does not accomplish this goal. Personally I can’t see how modern conveniences bring you to the higher spirituality levels necessary to fully appreciate the Mass or the Bible for that matter, which believe it or not, wasn’t written in English 2000 years ago.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

japhy

Why do people assume that people who promote the use of Latin in the Mass are opposed to the vernacular?

Because its stated in multiple threads throughout this forum, that a return to the TLM is what is hoped for.

Because, its stated throughout the multitude of threads that the vernacular was a protestant idea.

I haven’t see any threads opened by those who appreciate and want to keep the vernacular, condemning the TLM or use of Latin in the Mass.

But its not the case with those who want Latin in the Mass. Thread after thread condemning the total use of the vernacular, its getting tiring and quiet frankly, not conducive toward one’s experience at Mass, as the echos of this forum ring through a person’s mind as they’re trying to focus on the Mass in front of them.

We’re not learning anything here, just debating over issues we’ve dug our heels in over.

Fact is, the Holy Spirit guided the Church to where we are, and where we’ll be in the future.

Its time to resign ourselves to this reality.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

And why do people who promote the use of Latin think that those who prefer the vernacular hate Latin?

Ultimately its the Church’s decision. We can each take a steel bat and slug each other to death and that won’t change anything. The fact that Mass is said in all-vernacular today points to the fact that the Church allows for that. We can refer to as many documents as we want, but the Church obviously is doing what is her intentions and our personal interpretations of these documents are not the right one. The Church knows the spiritual needs of her flock and is responding to it.

But the Church has also said that it wants you to learn the responses in Latin, and that you should know them.

So that alone should be enough for anyone who wants to be a “Good Catholic” as your sig line states.

As you said, the Church knows the Spiritual needs of her flock, and one of those needs is to be able to " say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them"

In fact, if you read the section of Sacrosanctum Concillium that authoritzed the use of the vernacular in the first place, you can see that it is tied directly to the continuation of Latin.

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.

 

[Cat]

Personally I can’t see how modern conveniences bring you to the higher spirituality levels necessary to fully appreciate the Mass or the Bible for that matter, which believe it or not, wasn’t written in English 2000 years ago.

Personally, I can’t see why everyone doesn’t love synchronized skating and flock to the competitions when they are within 6 hours of driving distance like I do.

All kidding aside. You are not me. I happen to find the “modern conveniences” very conducive to “higher levels of spirituality.” A few weeks ago, an Advent concert by a Catholic artist was done in our church. The sound equipment for this concert was set up before the Saturday vigil Masses so that the concert could start after these Masses.

When I walked into the church and saw the sound equipment (speakers, mikes, cords, a sound board, lighting, etc.), it brought me back to the days of my Protestant worship services and the awe that we felt for God. I felt so worshipful and focused on God–these “modern conveniences” helped me to focus in on God in a very real way! It’s because of who I am and how I was raised. I’m sure many others in the congregation that evening were distracted and put off by the equipment, but for me, it represented deep worship.

 

[ProVobis]

The fact that Mass is said in all-vernacular today points to the fact that the Church allows for that.

Actually no. Almost all the bishops and priests were FORCING us to accept the all-vernacular. Big difference. (At least they did until recent years and now trying to correct that mistake.)

Per Archbishop Ranjith (who is now Cardinal)

“…
2.3 An effort will be made to make common Latin chants popular during this year. With this aim in mind the Archdiocesan Coordinator for Liturgy, together with [named invididual] will be organising sessions of practice in all 15 deaneries and teach all choirs some basic Latin chants which could be used in parishes and institutions. Once these practice sessions take place parishes may sing at least the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei at parish Sunday Masses on the first Sunday of the month. No. 36 of the Constitution on the Sacred liturgy clearly sets forth the principles in this regard. Latin still remains the main liturgical language of the Church. In Sri Lanka we made a mistake in abandoning the language of our worship altogether. Let this Eucharistic Year be an occasion for us to resuscitate this lost tradition at least to some extent. I appeal to all priests, religious and laity to cooperate.
…”

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/07/archbp-ranjith-in-sri-lanka-huzzah/

 

[ConstantineTG]

But the Church has also said that it wants you to learn the responses in Latin, and that you should know them.

Then why are they still promulgating the Mass in its entirety in English? Maybe you are just misinterpreting what the Church actually means.

So that alone should be enough for anyone who wants to be a “Good Catholic” as your sig line states.

So you’re judging me on what makes me a good Catholic?

By the way, Pope John Paul II said that all Roman Catholics should learn the traditions of the East in his Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen. Where’s the push for that? Why aren’t these good Catholics flooding the Eastern Catholic parishes? Cafeteria Catholics perhaps? Pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow?

As you said, the Church knows the Spiritual needs of her flock, and one of those needs is to be able to " say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them"

Er, no offense but who are you to dictate the spiritual needs of the flock? The need comes from the flock, not the Church. Obviously most of the flock doesn’t need the Latin. There’s a FSSP parish in my diocese for those who need it, but 95% of all the other parishes are in the vernacular and they are pretty full. And its not just english, we have french, cantonese, mandarin, vietnamese, korean, polish, etc. Many of these people are good Catholics who follow the teachings of the Church. And I speak for myself, while I have not been a lifelong devout Catholic, I went through the struggles of my faith and back into good standing with the Church while going to an all-vernacular Mass. A vernacular Mass does not shortchange one spiritually.

Also look at my Religion, I go now to an Eastern parish. Again, no Latin in the entire history of the Eastern Churches. But the East has produced many saints as well. Don’t think for an instant that only Latin is the way to spiritual growth. It is not. Was never nor will ever.

In fact, if you read the section of Sacrosanctum Concillium that authoritzed the use of the vernacular in the first place, you can see that it is tied directly to the continuation of Latin.

I’m not saying Latin should be burried under the ground and forgotten. I’m just saying that the vernacular is good and has brought many people to God and has fulfilled their spiritual needs.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually no. Almost all the bishops and priests were FORCING us to accept the all-vernacular. Big difference. (At least they did until recent years and now trying to correct that mistake.)

Per Archbishop Ranjith (who is now Cardinal)

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/07/archbp-ranjith-in-sri-lanka-huzzah/

Sorry but I still can’t find any truth to this. Most people I know will love to experience a Latin Mass but not exclusively go to one. Maybe because being a traditional Catholic its what you see in your circle of peers. But truth is many people love being in a Liturgy they can actively participate in and be part of, without being alienated by language. The Roman Church will bleed out Catholics if an all-Latin Mass is forced on the people. The priests and bishops, being the one in the trenches with the people, know that this is something the people need. Many Catholics who may be cafeteria Catholics might leave the faith for one that speaks to them in a language they can understand. I know the prevailing temperament on this forum is that, “we don’t need them, let them go.” But that is not what the Church is here for. The Church is here to call sinners and if we don’t get these people the opportunity to grow in the faith within the Church, then we have let that one lost sheep get lost.

 

[ConstantineTG]

japhy

Because its stated in multiple threads throughout this forum, that a return to the TLM is what is hoped for.

Because, its stated throughout the multitude of threads that the vernacular was a protestant idea.

I haven’t see any threads opened by those who appreciate and want to keep the vernacular, condemning the TLM or use of Latin in the Mass.

But its not the case with those who want Latin in the Mass. Thread after thread condemning the total use of the vernacular, its getting tiring and quiet frankly, not conducive toward one’s experience at Mass, as the echos of this forum ring through a person’s mind as they’re trying to focus on the Mass in front of them.

We’re not learning anything here, just debating over issues we’ve dug our heels in over.

Fact is, the Holy Spirit guided the Church to where we are, and where we’ll be in the future.

Its time to resign ourselves to this reality.

Jim

Nice post. I wonder why we can’t accept the solution is not the left of the right but the middle. Why do people think its either all-Latin or all-vernacular? I think our diocese should be a model for this. There is a FSSP parish in the heart of Vancouver, there’s another TLM out in the valley, then we have many OF parishes that offer mostly English, but also Masses in French, Canontese, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Korean, Polish, and other languages. Parishes are full, participation is good. Catholicism is alive and well in the Lower Mainland, BC. There is something for everyone.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If this statement were correct I would shut up and sit down. However what recent history proves to be true is that with our now “democratic” hierarchy the Bishop’s Conferences decide how They will interpret what the documents say. In some cases individual Priests decide what the Documents say. In even more cases Parish liturgy councils determine what the documents say. There are numerous documents from the CDW that I can point to where the Magesterium’s wish for all to follow the actual documents but their desires go ignored. For reasons that I do not understand this dissent is allowed to continue.
Our now “Democratic” Church is sliding into a situation that we have seen for years with the protestants. Many individuals with many ideas and designs ( on both sides, trad and modern) and little care for the Authority of the Holy Father or the Magesterium. Our western culture demands self direction and refuses to yield to a central authority and some have used the changes set forth in V-II to allow the disinters to flourish.
I pray for devout Bishops and Cardinals to reign in the various Conferences and restore the adherence to the one, singular Magesterium of our Universal Catholic Church.

God Bless

If the Church doesn’t support this move, then why promulgate a new translation of English? Why even support these supposed to be renegade Bishops? Doesn’t the new translations have recognitio of the Holy See? Thats their stamp of approval! If the Holy See doesn’t agree with using all-vernacular, why put their seal on it?

Its bothering that we suspect too much conspiracy theory behind the Church. We’re falling into this mentality that has been used by the likes of Dan Brown to sell fictional books. There is always a grand

Anyway, I’d rather trust what a priest or bishop will say what the Church documents say over a lay traditionalist. No offense. No priest or bishop is perfect, but neither are we lay people. Its just a matter of position. We believe Holy Orders are given only by God through the Church. They were called. There’s a reason they received Holy Orders and we didn’t. I trust the work of the Holy Spirit within the Church, even though sometimes we may have to take a long detour just to get back on course. But the opinion of a priest or bishop will and should always outweigh the opinion of the laity. Didn’t St. Paul call us to respect our elders? Elders meaning people in position in the Church.

 

[dmorgan]

If the Church doesn’t support this move, then why promulgate a new translation of English? Why even support these supposed to be renegade Bishops? Doesn’t the new translations have recognitio of the Holy See? Thats their stamp of approval! If the Holy See doesn’t agree with using all-vernacular, why put their seal on it?

Its bothering that we suspect too much conspiracy theory behind the Church. We’re falling into this mentality that has been used by the likes of Dan Brown to sell fictional books. There is always a grand

Anyway, I’d rather trust what a priest or bishop will say what the Church documents say over a lay traditionalist. No offense. No priest or bishop is perfect, but neither are we lay people. Its just a matter of position. We believe Holy Orders are given only by God through the Church. They were called. There’s a reason they received Holy Orders and we didn’t. I trust the work of the Holy Spirit within the Church, even though sometimes we may have to take a long detour just to get back on course. But the opinion of a priest or bishop will and should always outweigh the opinion of the laity. Didn’t St. Paul call us to respect our elders? Elders meaning people in position in the Church.

No offense taken. Pax Christi

 

[ConstantineTG]

So that alone should be enough for anyone who wants to be a “Good Catholic” as your sig line states.

By the way, I have tried Latin Mass and have respect for it. But my journey in becoming the good Catholic I desire to be doesn’t go through the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Missal. Instead God has directed me East.

And thats the thing I’ve been trying to say. There are many people who find the spiritual nourishment they need and God desires for them without Latin. God is not restricted by language, why should we? As evidenced by Pentecost, we receive God’s word in a language familiar to us. God wants us to understand Him clearly. For some people this may be going through Latin and learning and understanding and appreciating it. For others its in the vernacular. Don’t think one way is better than the other. God came to meet us to lift us up to Himself when Jesus became man. God will definitely speak to us in a language we can understand and appreciate.

 

[ProVobis]

Anyway, I’d rather trust what a priest or bishop will say what the Church documents say over a lay traditionalist.

Then you should have no problem accepting the Council of Trent (no all-vernacular), Veterum Sapientia (Latin), Vatican II (Latin), Studia Latinitatis, Jubilatio Deo (Latin chant), Canon 249 and bishops’ directives on priestly formations.

 

[Frosty]

I’m always leery of those who love to quote Article 36 nos 1&2 of Sacrosanctum Concillium as proof that Vll decreed that Latin must be retained, at least partially, in the Mass but ignore number 3 which states:

1. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

Are not the Bishops the competent ecclestiastical authorities? They are the ones who have [and have had] their fingers on the pulse of their dioceses and try to discern what is the appropriate measure for their flocks. One poster has claimed that the vernacular language was forced down our throats after the introduction of the Missal of Paul Vl. I have no idea where he comes from but in my own experience all I can say is Hogwash!
In the early 1970’s I was very familiar with what was happenning in 2 dioceses. The one where I was living at the time and the one in which I grew up. In general, the approach to introducing the new Mass was the same in both dioceses. Far from waking up one Sunday to find a brand new Mass with no Latin and everything else we were familiar with jettisoned out the window, it was not like that at all. I won’t talk about how we had been prepared for years for the changes, only about the gradual disappearance of Latin in the Mass [although in some parishes it really hasn’t totally disappeared].
At first, it was normally the case that only one of the weekend Masses used the vernacular to any extent, In most of the parishes it was the Saturday evening Mass. leaving the Sunday Masses in Latin except for the Readings and the homily. Prior to this, the Saturday Masses were seldom very well attended but as the weeks went on, more and more parishoners began to attend. In some parishes it got to the point that they couldn’t sqeeze another person in, even in the narthex and people would stand outside on the steps. Because of this, many parishes began to offer the vernacular Mass at one of the time slots on Sunday as well. As time went on, surprise, surprise! The majority of parishoners actually prefered to attend the Masses that were in the vernacular and the attendance at Masses offered only in Latin became rather dismal. None of this occurred overnight but it was a gradual process and by the end of the decade in either of the 2 dioceses I mentioned it was fairly rare to find a Mass celebrated only in Latin.
I have no desire to paint with a broad brush and say that this is how it happenned everywhere. All I can do is speak of my own experience and what I was familiar with. But it seems to me that far from the Bishops of these 2 dioceses being disobedient to the Pope and disregarding SC, they were doing what they are called to do and ministering to their flock.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then you should have no problem accepting the Council of Trent (no all-vernacular), Veterum Sapientia (Latin), Vatican II (Latin), Studia Latinitatis, Jubilatio Deo (Latin chant), Canon 249 and bishops’ directives on priestly formations.

I have no problem accepting what the Church is doing right now, today. Laws and disciplines of the Church changes through time, we can’t be caught on laws for the past because it applied in the past. What the Church does today is for today.

 

[japhy]

Nice post. I wonder why we can’t accept the solution is not the left of the right but the middle. Why do people think its either all-Latin or all-vernacular?

Hey! I’m advocating the middle! I’m advocating a mix of Latin and vernacular!

I think our diocese should be a model for this. There is a FSSP parish in the heart of Vancouver, there’s another TLM out in the valley, then we have many OF parishes that offer mostly English, but also Masses in French, Canontese, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Korean, Polish, and other languages. Parishes are full, participation is good. Catholicism is alive and well in the Lower Mainland, BC. There is something for everyone.

Is there any Latin mixed in with those vernaculars? Or are the celebrations of the Mass simply all-Latin or all-vernacular?

 

[ProVobis]

we have many OF parishes that offer mostly English, but also Masses in French, Canontese, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Korean, Polish, and other languages.

Do you know for a fact that they are all Catholic? I once attended a Vietnamese wedding, later found out it was a Baptist ceremony. Very embarassing. If all these churches were to have just a little Latin, then I’d be a lot more sure they were Catholic. As it stands now, you have to take their word for it.

 

[ProVobis]

I have no problem accepting what the Church is doing right now, today. Laws and disciplines of the Church changes through time, we can’t be caught on laws for the past because it applied in the past.

When were all those laws repealed? Where are the expiration dates of those documents? Trent was doctrinal, Vatican II is living, and Veterum Sapientia was a statement of fact. Code of canon law protects old customs. Nine cardinals found that the old Latin Mass was never abrogated, Cardinal Arinze concedes translations are very difficult and now-Cardinal Ranjith claimed the abondoning of Latin was a mistake. What more do you need?

Would you say the same about Christ’s laws no longer applying because you don’t like them and that’s also in the past?

 

[Cat]

When were all those laws repealed? Where are the expiration dates of those documents? Trent was doctrinal, Vatican II is living, and Veterum Sapientia was a statement of fact. Code of canon law protects old customs. Nine cardinals found that the old Latin Mass was never abrogated, Cardinal Arinze concedes translations are very difficult and now-Cardinal Ranjith claimed the abondoning of Latin was a mistake. What more do you need?

Would you say the same about Christ’s laws no longer applying because you don’t like them and that’s also in the past?

So are you saying that the bishops who allow vernacular OF Masses are in rebellion to the Church? Is that what you’re saying? This is what it sounds like you are saying? Is it?

Jesus told us not to stand and pray in public to be seen by men, too, but all of us do this in the Mass. Are we disobeying Him? Of course not. Christ didn’t make “laws.” He did make it clear that we are to obey the Greatest Commandment and the Second Greatest Commandment and He gave us a lot of specific ways to do that. Christ came to fulfil the Law, not to set down a systematic theology and doctrinal statement. That job was given to the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

Prior to this, the Saturday Masses were seldom very well attended but as the weeks went on, more and more parishoners began to attend.

Let me get this straight. No one could even translate the Latin well enough for people to understand exactly which Saturday Masses were/are valid for fulfilling the Sunday obligation yet they accepted the entire Mass translations more/better than the language the Vatican used to promulgate the Mass? What’s wrong with this picture?

 

[japhy]

And why do people who promote the use of Latin think that those who prefer the vernacular hate Latin?

I don’t know for sure. I don’t have that particular opinion.

But it is clear from comments here that some of you “pro-vernacular” people (and that’s an inaccurate label, I admit) think that some of us who promote the use of Latin are also opposed to the vernacular, or that some of us who promote the use of Latin think the Church herself is opposed to the vernacular! While that may be true of some Latin promoters, I don’t think it is true of anyone participating in this thread, and so I find it to be a tangential and unnecessary line of discussion.

ConstantineTG, you’ve made a few comments recently in this thread that make it seem like promotion of Latin is opposed to promotion of the vernacular:
Thing is, the Church obviously accepts and sees the good in an all vernacular Mass. In fact the Church has poured in resources to update the English translation. If the Church is against it, why promulgate a new English Missal at all?

Again, if the Church’s intention is to do away with the vernacular, why put the effort in updating the translation?

Latin is to be maintained, but that doesn’t mean its all-Latin all-the-time. Every traditionalist here seems to think that way. That is not what is being said. Maintaining and keeping is different from being the sole language.

Then why are they still promulgating the Mass in its entirety in English?

If the Church doesn’t support this move, then why promulgate a new translation of English? Why even support these supposed to be renegade Bishops? Doesn’t the new translations have recognitio of the Holy See? Thats their stamp of approval! If the Holy See doesn’t agree with using all-vernacular, why put their seal on it?
I’m not against the vernacular. I’m against the driving-out of Latin, contrary to the decree of Vatican II, contrary to what has been said by the Church since then. I am in favor of the Latin and the vernacular existing within the same celebration of the liturgy.

JimR-OCDS posted:
Because its stated in multiple threads throughout this forum, that a return to the TLM is what is hoped for. Because, its stated throughout the multitude of threads that the vernacular was a protestant idea. … Thread after thread condemning the total use of the vernacular…
That’s not this thread! There is no condemnation of the vernacular here! I am trying to promote the Latin alongside the vernacular!

And so you (Constantine) asked “Whats the point of keeping it in two languages? The whole point it was made into the vernacular is so that the locals would have an appreciation for it. While I don’t really object to it but it just contradicts the reason why the vernacular is used.”

Well, that question could be answered by the Council Fathers who said that Latin should be retained and that the faithful should be able to make the responses. Sac. Conc. didn’t specify just why Latin should be retained and employed by the faithful. But it’s clear that Paul VI promoted use of Latin for at least this purpose: to keep Gregorian chant – which is the chant proper to the Roman Rite – in use in our churches and among the faithful. Over time, apologetics for the retention and use of Latin has shifted more towards the universality of the membership of the Church: “Since faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is fitting that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin.” (GIRM 41)

But your question is a good one. Why (besides the fact that Vatican II mandated it) should Latin be retained alongside the vernacular in our liturgical celebrations?

Would anyone else like to answer?