Latin? In MY Mass?

[malphono]

But as I recall that same Conciliar document leaves it up to the local bishops as to the extent of the use of the vernacular and Latin. It would be easy to interpret this as meaning that for a period of experimentation the vernacular could completely replace Latin, at least in theory. This seems to be what has been lived out in practice.

Yes, apparently that’s what was done. An “experiment” that lasted some 45 years, and is still, apparently, going on.

One way or another the Church is now on the upswing of reestablishing itself within authentic tradition and not being tossed around willy-nilly in the name of liturgical “experimentation”.

Hopefully the trend continues.

 

[japhy]

Nope, because the document doesn’t make a mandate one way or another.

The document doesn’t make a mandate about what?

The Council Fathers clearly do decree that “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.”

The ability to say or sing parts of the Mass in Latin was echoed in 1967’s Eucharisticum Mysterium 19, in the context of multilingual gatherings:
19. …] Where there are many visitors or expatriates of another language, pastors should provide them with the opportunity, at least occasionally, to participate in the Mass celebrated in the way customary for them. “Nevertheless steps should be taken enabling the faithful to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them.”
So we see that even though these “many visitors or expatriates” should have the “the opportunity, at least occasionally, to participate in the Mass celebrated in the way customary for them”, the Church still urges them, and all the faithful, to be able “to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them.”

If the Bishop of a dioceses sees the use of Latin well received and its use done properly, then that Bishop obedient to the spirit of the document will continue its use along with support for it.

However, that is not what happened in the majority of Dioceses and it wasn’t because Bishops were being disobedient to the document, but in fact, following it fully.

Let’s take a step back. SC 54.2 doesn’t even address the actual celebration of the Mass, it simply speaks about the faithful having the ability to do something! So if the bishops did not take “steps …] so that the faithful [are also] able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them,” then the bishops did not fully follow the Constitution.

So then, why didn’t bishops take these necessary steps, regardless of how much vernacular they wanted in the liturgy?

This call for the capacity to say or sing in Latin did not disappear after 1967.

1994, Varietates Legitimae 40: Music and singing, which express the soul of people, have pride of place in the liturgy. And so singing must be promoted, in the first place singing the liturgical text, so that the voices of the faithful may be heard in the liturgical actions themselves. {84}

{84} 84. Cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 118; also No. 54: While allowing that “a suitable place be allotted to the language of the country” in the chants, “steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or sign together in Latin those parts of the ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them,” especially the Our Father, cf. Roman Missal, General Instruction, 19.

2002, General Instruction of the Roman Missal 41: 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, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, set to the simpler melodies.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

malphono

The change was “rapid” as you say, because the vernacular was imposed without recourse.

Well not from my experience. I recall the shift into the vernacular.

At first the parts where in Latin, but the people merely remained silent while the choir or cantor sang, as they always did before. As the parts were re-written into the vernacular, the people began to sing more and more.

Keep in mind that before Vatican II, the people didn’t sing at Mass, the choirs did the singing. The altar boys did the responses. So the mind set of singing was foreign, never mind singing Gregorian Chant.

The change to the vernacular happened because for the most part, it worked better and the Bishops saw it, and went with it.

.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

japhy

The document doesn’t make a mandate about what?

That Latin must be retained. It says “should,” and even provides reasons why changes to the vernacular were permissible.

The Council Fathers clearly do decree that “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.”

Should take these steps, but it didn’t work so they moved away from it.

The Bishops didn’t operate in a vacuum. They saw what was working in their parishes and what the people were welcoming. Its the main reason why it changed.

The ability to say or sing parts of the Mass in Latin was echoed in 1967’s Eucharisticum Mysterium 19, in the context of multilingual gatherings:
19. …] Where there are many visitors or expatriates of another language, pastors should provide them with the opportunity, at least occasionally, to participate in the Mass celebrated in the way customary for them. “Nevertheless steps should be taken enabling the faithful to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them.”
So we see that even though these “many visitors or expatriates” should have the “the opportunity, at least occasionally, to participate in the Mass celebrated in the way customary for them”, the Church still urges them, and all the faithful, to be able “to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them.”

So what should the Bishops have done, stop allowing Mass altogether because the people were holding to Latin ?

Let’s take a step back. SC 54.2 doesn’t even address the actual celebration of the Mass, it simply speaks about the faithful having the ability to do something! So if the bishops did not take “steps …] so that the faithful [are also] able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them,” then the bishops did not fully follow the Constitution.

The Bishops did not take the steps because they couldn’t. Latin was being dropped from most high-school curriculum’s and fewer people were around to provide instruction. So who was going to teach lay people how to pronounce Latin words and sing Gregorian Chant properly across all the dioceses?

So then, why didn’t bishops take these necessary steps, regardless of how much vernacular they wanted in the liturgy?

See above.

This call for the capacity to say or sing in Latin did not disappear after 1967.

The only thing the documents stated was that the use of Latin “should” be retained. But it was a minor objective of the reform and as I showed, the document allowed for experimentation to see what would work best. The vernacular did and as a result, Latin was used less and less until it became rare.

Look, you can quote all the documents you want, but its the Bishops who are going to decide what works best overall.

They don’t just serve one group of people, but all and must balance out what works for the majority.

Jim

 

[japhy]

That Latin must be retained. It says “should,” and even provides reasons why changes to the vernacular were permissible.

SC 36.1 is not opposed to the introduction and use of the vernacular, it is about the continued presence and use of Latin.

Should take these steps, but it didn’t work so they moved away from it. The Bishops didn’t operate in a vacuum. They saw what was working in their parishes and what the people were welcoming. Its the main reason why it changed.

What steps did they take? And the very presence of “Nevertheless” (tamen in the Latin) is an indicator that the Council Fathers expected the vernacular would catch on, and so they wanted to ensure that, despite (growing) use of the vernacular, the people would still be able to make certain responses in Latin.

So what should the Bishops have done, stop allowing Mass altogether because the people were holding to Latin ?

I don’t understand your question, nor how it relates to what you quoted from me. Could you explain?

The Bishops did not take the steps because they couldn’t. Latin was being dropped from most high-school curriculum’s and fewer people were around to provide instruction. So who was going to teach lay people how to pronounce Latin words and sing Gregorian Chant properly across all the dioceses?

The people who already knew. Bishops, priests, deacons, singers, and others. Latin didn’t disappear from people’s minds overnight.

They don’t just serve one group of people, but all and must balance out what works for the majority.

And the Council Fathers wanted all the faithful to be able to make these responses in Latin, not just a minority of them.

 

[japhy]

The Bishops did not take the steps because they couldn’t. Latin was being dropped from most high-school curriculum’s and fewer people were around to provide instruction. So who was going to teach lay people how to pronounce Latin words and sing Gregorian Chant properly across all the dioceses?

In this day and age, the resources certainly do exist. You can learn the responses online, even.

As for Gregorian chant, you can render the notation in the “normal” way too.

 

[malphono]

Well not from my experience. I recall the shift into the vernacular.

At first the parts where in Latin,

Did I say it was imposed all at once? But imposed it was nonetheless. The first stage was more-or-less reasonable, and then it ran like wildfire. To the point where clergy and others would definitely say that Latin was forbidden.

but the people merely remained silent while the choir or cantor sang, as they always did before.

As the parts were re-written into the vernacular, the people began to sing more and more.

Keep in mind that before Vatican II, the people didn’t sing at Mass, the choirs did the singing. The altar boys did the responses. So the mind set of singing was foreign, never mind singing Gregorian Chant.

Well, then, I guess it depends on the place and the people. Often times, whether wants to believe it or not, people in the congregation who were familiar with the music would sing with the choir (and still do in the EF).

The change to the vernacular happened because for the most part, it worked better and the Bishops saw it, and went with it.

It happened the way it did because it was imposed as part of the agenda of a certain group that would stop at nothing to get what it wanted.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

japhy

C 36.1 is not opposed to the introduction and use of the vernacular, it is about the continued presence and use of Latin.

But it doesn’t mandate it.

What steps did they take? And the very presence of “Nevertheless” (tamen in the Latin) is an indicator that the Council Fathers expected the vernacular would catch on, and so they wanted to ensure that, despite (growing) use of the vernacular, the people would still be able to make certain responses in Latin.

Not much because they were trying to teach the people the new format of the Mass. The use of the vernacular snowballed and I don’t think there was a way for the Bishops to have put the breaks on in order to stop their dioceses from using Latin.

Hindsight is nice, but its far too late to go back now.

I don’t understand your question, nor how it relates to what you quoted from me. Could you explain?

My question is what should the Bishops have done, being that Latin was being dropped by the people they serve?

The people who already knew. Bishops, priests, deacons, singers, and others. Latin didn’t disappear from people’s minds overnight.

Bishops and priest knew Latin. Permanent Deacons didn’t exist. Singers mimicked the Latin they sang as well as the choir directors. Few were fluent in Latin or had a working knowledge of the correct pronunciations.

Again, the Bishops and priest were learning the new format of the Mass themselves and their main objective was teaching the people the format.

Had the use of Latin been readily easy for the people to accept in their active participation, I’m sure the Bishops would’ve gone with it. However it wasn’t and the change came quickly.

Before we knew it, Latin had gone completely from the Mass in most American parishes.

I didn’t hear Latin in the Mass again until EWTN started televising the Mass.

I then attended Mass at a local Benedictine Monastery, which celebrated the Mass just as EWTN does. It was wonderful, but it would never fly back in my home parish, I can assure you of that.

And the Council Fathers wanted all the faithful to be able to make these responses in Latin, not just a minority of them.

I don’t think the Council Fathers really knew how well the vernacular would be accepted.

As it was, I remember Catholics rejecting the idea that they now had to sing and say the response. They were content just sitting in the pew and listening to the priest, altar boys and choir do the Mass.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

malphono

Did I say it was imposed all at once? But imposed it was nonetheless.

I don’t see it that way. The changes in the Mass were at first not easily accepted, because the people were mostly not use to singing.

The first stage was more-or-less reasonable, and then it ran like wildfire. To the point where clergy and others would definitely say that Latin was forbidden.

Uhmm, some people thought Latin was forbidden, but they really meant it was the TLM.

For many Catholics, especially for my younger brothers who were just in grade school when the NO became the norm, they had no idea about Latin. Today as adults, they’d really have a problem with it.

Well, then, I guess it depends on the place and the people. Often times, whether wants to believe it or not, people in the congregation who were familiar with the music would sing with the choir (and still do in the EF).

It was not the norm for the people to sing with the choir at least not in my area of the world.

It happened the way it did because it was imposed as part of the agenda of a certain group that would stop at nothing to get what it wanted.

There was no conspiracy by a group of people to remove Latin from the Mass. If there was and they were successful, it doesn’t say much about the power of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.

Jim

 

[japhy]

But it doesn’t mandate it.

Okay, so what did the Constitution “mandate”?

Not much because they were trying to teach the people the new format of the Mass.

The “new format” of the Mass didn’t come about until 1969/1970. The minor reforms between 1964 and 1969 were not as drastic, based on the liturgical documents themselves (Inter Oecumenici in 1964 and Tres Abhinc Annos in 1967). Now, I’m excluding whatever sort of unauthorized experimentation was being carried out by bishops and priests at that time, and it’s clear there was a fair amount of that.

Now, perhaps you mean the bishops were teaching the people the vernacular. How hard would it have been to teach them the vernacular and the Latin (where they were expected to use it) side-by-side, after the example of personal missals at the time?

The use of the vernacular snowballed and I don’t think there was a way for the Bishops to have put the breaks on in order to stop their dioceses from using Latin.

You keep confusing me. You mean “… to stop their dioceses from using the vernacular”, right?

The point is, they didn’t need to stop the use of the vernacular. They just needed to retain the use of Latin. It seems reasonable to me to use some Latin on Sundays, and let weekday Masses be completely vernacular, for example. And it’s not like the bishops don’t have any control over the liturgy (as we’ve seen).

Hindsight is nice, but its far too late to go back now.

That’s such a cop-out, Jim. It’s too late to do anything about it now? Is that the approach we should take to parts of Vatican II which remain woefully unrealized?

My question is what should the Bishops have done, being that Latin was being dropped by the people they serve?

They could have instructed their dioceses to retain the use of Latin at Mass, as the Council Fathers expressly desired. They could have instructed their priests (who still knew Latin at that point — at the very least, the Latin of the Missal) to help their parishioners learn the responses in Latin.

Bishops and priest knew Latin. Permanent Deacons didn’t exist.

I didn’t say “permanent deacons”, I said deacons. Deacons existed. And the permanent diaconate was restored started in 1967.

Singers mimicked the Latin they sang as well as the choir directors.

Perhaps some did, but not all.

Few were fluent in Latin or had a working knowledge of the correct pronunciations.

You don’t have to be fluent! I can’t believe how many times this canard shows up. No one is asking us to learn Latin. We’re being asked to learn the Latin responses of the Mass. That’s a very limited vocabulary! And the pronunciations don’t take long to learn. You can learn them in a day, or a week, or a month, depending on how much you care to practice it. It’s a lot easier than pronouncing English, I can tell you, where vowels and consonants shift in sound from word to word. (The proposed spelling “ghoti” for “fish” is a prime example of this – “gh” as in “tough”, “o” as in “women”, “ti” as in “nation”.)

it would never fly back in my home parish, I can assure you of that.

Why would Latin never fly in a parish today? Simply because bishops failed to take the steps the Council deemed necessary? And so it is irreformable now? “Its far too late to go back now”?

I don’t think the Council Fathers really knew how well the vernacular would be accepted.

They sure provided enough opportunity for it in the Constitution!

As it was, I remember Catholics rejecting the idea that they now had to sing and say the response. They were content just sitting in the pew and listening to the priest, altar boys and choir do the Mass.

That may be your experience, but I’m sure there are people here as old as you who have a very different recollection.

Catholics mimicking the words of their prayers (or refusing them altogether), no matter what language, is a whole other problem.

 

[japhy]

There was no conspiracy by a group of people to remove Latin from the Mass. If there was and they were successful, it doesn’t say much about the power of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.

Not everything that happens in the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Legionaries of Christ and the clergy sexual abuse scandal are clear enough indicators of that.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Not everything that happens in the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Legionaries of Christ and the clergy sexual abuse scandal are clear enough indicators of that.

Oh so you’re going to compare the use of the vernacular in the Mass to the sex abuse scandal and the Legionaires of Christ?

Get real.

Jim

 

[malphono]

I don’t see it that way. The changes in the Mass were at first not easily accepted, because the people were mostly not use to singing.

I guess that again depends on who and where.

Uhmm, some people thought Latin was forbidden, but they really meant it was the TLM.

No it wasn’t that people “thought” anything of the sort. They were told repeatedly by clergy and sisters that both the “old Mass” and Latin were forbidden. And how would the people in the pew have known the difference? Surely not by example: let’s face it, the Novus Ordo in Latin was not (and is not) exactly something that many people have ever even heard about much less experienced. And surprise! As it turns out neither the “old Mass” or Latin was ever forbidden.

For many Catholics, especially for my younger brothers who were just in grade school when the NO became the norm, they had no idea about Latin. Today as adults, they’d really have a problem with it.

Isn’t it just amazing how Jews, for example, from whatever country and speaking whatever vernacular language of that country, are able to learn at least enough Hebrew to follow the service? Now how could that be?

There was no conspiracy by a group of people to remove Latin from the Mass. If there was and they were successful, it doesn’t say much about the power of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.

Whether or not it was a “conspiracy” I’ll leave for others to debate. But there certainly was an agenda (which very clearly remains) . They forced it though. What says more about the power of the Holy Ghost guiding the Church is the current movement to sweep away the excesses of those people and that period.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

malphono

No it wasn’t that people “thought” anything of the sort. They were told repeatedly by clergy and sisters that both the “old Mass” and Latin were forbidden. And how would the people in the pew have known the difference? Surely not by example: let’s face it, the Novus Ordo in Latin was not (and is not) exactly something that many people have ever even heard about much less experienced. And surprise! As it turns out neither the “old Mass” or Latin was ever forbidden.

The TLM as the norm for Mass in parishes was prohibited and only allowed on exception.

Isn’t it just amazing how Jews, for example, from whatever country and speaking whatever vernacular language of that country, are able to learn at least enough Hebrew to follow the service? Now how could that be?

Yeah, but most Jews don’t go to synagouge and just because those that do on a whole get by with it, it has more to with the cultural context than a spiritual one.

Praying in the vernacular is far more conducive than praying in a lanauge you struggle with.

Whether or not it was a “conspiracy” I’ll leave for others to debate. But there certainly was an agenda (which very clearly remains) .

What agenda was that?

They forced it though.

No, they didn’t. The vernacular was widely welcomed by Catholics.

What says more about the power of the Holy Ghost guiding the Church is the current movement to sweep away the excesses of those people and that period.

Huh, sweep away the excesss of those people?

Who are those people?

Jim

 

[malphono]

The TLM as the norm for Mass in parishes was prohibited and only allowed on exception.

Oh it certainly was that. And yet PP Benedict XVI has clarified that it was never abrogated.

Yeah, but most Jews don’t go to synagouge and just because those that do on a whole get by with it, it has more to with the cultural context than a spiritual one.

I’m sure there are all kinds of Jews out there (amongst others) who might just take some issue with that. In the case of Jews, (and others, as well), it might be partially “cultural” but there is also a great spiritual dimension to it. The latter trumps the former.

Praying in the vernacular is far more conducive than praying in a lanauge you struggle with.

In your opinion.

What agenda was that?

Sorry but no, but we’re not going to play that game. I’m not taking the bait.

No, they didn’t. The vernacular was widely welcomed by Catholics.

Here again, I guess it depends on who and where.

Huh, sweep away the excesss of those people?

Who are those people?

Another game that I’m not interested in playing. I’m not taking that bait either.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

malphono

Oh it certainly was that. And yet PP Benedict XVI has clarified that it was never abrogated.

But he issued motu proprio which allows the TLM to be celebrated without the previous requirement of obtaining permission first.

\I’m sure there are all kinds of Jews out there (amongst others) who might just take some issue with that. In the case of Jews, (and others, as well), it might be partially “cultural” but there is also a great spiritual dimension to it. The latter trumps the former.

Some might, but being friends with Jews, I can safely say what I’ve said.

In your opinion.

I think its the opinion of most, that praying in your own language is more conducive in your prayer life than struggling with another language you’re not use to.

So

rry but no, but we’re not going to play that game. I’m not taking the bait.

Well, you’re the one who made the accusation, I’m not the one baiting.

Another game that I’m not interested in playing. I’m not taking that bait either.

Again, you’re the one who brought it up, not me.

Jim

 

[japhy]

Oh so you’re going to compare the use of the vernacular in the Mass to the sex abuse scandal and the Legionaires of Christ?

I’m just saying that the Holy Spirit did not prevent Maciel and hundreds of other priests from sinning grievously against children. The Holy Spirit did not prevent certain bishops from carrying on long homosexual relationships which eventually cost the faithful thousands of dollars.

I do not say this to doubt God’s power! He has His reasons for not intervening in these affairs.

But you said that if there was a “conspiracy by a group of people to remove Latin from the Mass …] and they were successful, it doesn’t say much about the power of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.” Does the fact that there has been a sexual abuse conspiracy going on for quite some time “say much about the power of the Holy Spirit”?

But this is veering wildly off-topic, so I apologize for the tangent and the wild comparison I made. I would like to return to the liturgical thread of the conversation.

I left off with a few questions for you:

Okay, so what did the Constitution “mandate”?

How hard would it have been for the bishops to teach them the vernacular and the Latin (where they were expected to use it) side-by-side, after the example of personal missals at the time?

“It’s far too late” to do anything about it now? Is that the approach we should take to parts of Vatican II which remain woefully unrealized?

Why would Latin never fly in a parish today? Simply because bishops failed to take the steps the Council deemed necessary? And so it is irreformable now? “Its far too late to go back now”?

 

[malphono]

But he issued motu proprio which allows the TLM to be celebrated without the previous requirement of obtaining permission first.

from Summorum Pontificum:

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.

Some might, but being friends with Jews, I can safely say what I’ve said.

I think its the opinion of most, that praying in your own language is more conducive in your prayer life than struggling with another language you’re not use to.

Evidently we know different Jews. And in any case, they’re certainly not the only ones to pray in a “foreign tongue.” Of course, we also have Bl PP John XXIII in Veterum Sapientia, as well as those parts of Sacrosantum Concilium that some seem to so conveniently overlook or disregard.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well, I’ve said all I have to say on the issue and I’d just be repeating myself.

Also, I’m going to start backing off debates in all web forums, being this close to Christmas.

I want to focus more on my spiritual life for the next few days.

Have a Blessed Merry Christmas

Jim

 

[japhy]

Well, I’ve said all I have to say on the issue and I’d just be repeating myself.

Very well.

Also, I’m going to start backing off debates in all web forums, being this close to Christmas. I want to focus more on my spiritual life for the next few days.

That’s a good idea for all of us.

Have a blessed remainder of this Advent, and a merry Christmas. May God keep you close in the new year!