Latin? In MY Mass?

[dmorgan]

The Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy was written in 1963.

One of the key elements that many fail to read is further down in the document which states;

So it was over the course of years, that the experiment in the use of the vernacular was seen by the Bishops as more successful than the attempts to retain Latin and so the Mass evolved completely into the use of the vernacular in most parishes across the world. This also kept with the spirit of the document which stated in the very beginning;

And so, the Mass evolved into what we have today and few parishes use Latin in their celebration of the Mass.

There has been a rise in the use of Latin, but its still in the minority.

Jim

JimR, would you like to elaborate as to how this has worked out in the past forty years? I must disagree with the " More successful" part.

 

[GwenL]

I’m a recent convert. Like many other converts that I know, I love the use of Latin in the Mass. After a lot of thought, I’ve figured out why. When Mass in totally in English (or Spanish, which I also speak), I feel as if I were in communion with a small group of people today who speak this same language, and I feel as if the worship is inwardly focused and centered around our small group. When the Mass includes Latin, I feel as if I were in communion over space AND time with Catholic Christians back to the early days of Christianity. I sense a common union with monks who prayed the Mass in Latin in the 4th century, with laypeople in the middle ages, with new converts in the Americas in the 13th century, and with the Holy Father today. I just don’t get that sense in English.

The very few and very simple prayers of the people in the Mass in Latin are so beautiful, so complete, and so sacred–and so very easy to learn. For example, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, the Pater Noster. I would also suggest that if you’ve been to more than a few Masses and have been paying attention, you know exactly what priest is doing and saying at every point in the Mass, even when he uses Latin.

 

[Tentoes]

I’m a recent convert. Like many other converts that I know, I love the use of Latin in the Mass. After a lot of thought, I’ve figured out why. When Mass in totally in English (or Spanish, which I also speak), I feel as if I were in communion with a small group of people today who speak this same language, and I feel as if the worship is inwardly focused and centered around our small group. When the Mass includes Latin, I feel as if I were in communion over space AND time with Catholic Christians back to the early days of Christianity. I sense a common union with monks who prayed the Mass in Latin in the 4th century, with laypeople in the middle ages, with new converts in the Americas in the 13th century, and with the Holy Father today. I just don’t get that sense in English.

The very few and very simple prayers of the people in the Mass in Latin are so beautiful, so complete, and so sacred–and so very easy to learn. For example, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, the Pater Noster. I would also suggest that if you’ve been to more than a few Masses and have been paying attention, you know exactly what priest is doing and saying at every point in the Mass, even when he uses Latin.

yes - it is also the silent parts where you can pray without distraction or worrying about when the next response is. you can follow along and “pray” the mass -people would be surprised how beautiful the prayers are the priest says. It makes you realize what you are a part of and brings you closer to God.
I was lost when i started going to a Latin Mass but after awhile it becomes second nature like you have been there your whole life. The OF is too people focused where the Latin Mass all the focus is on Jesus where it belongs

 

[Cat]

-people would be surprised how beautiful the prayers are the priest says. It makes you realize what you are a part of and brings you closer to God.

Perhaps this is where some of the “disconnect” is in this discussion.

I’m an ex-Protestant, from the evangelical Protestant churches.

I have absolutely no comprehension of what “beautiful prayers” means. To me, that concept doesn’t exist.

ALL prayers are beautiful to an evangelical Protestant, including the simple “Help me, God!” prayer of the desperate. We are taught that God doesn’t care what our words are or how articulate we are, but rather, what the attitude of our heart is.

So to me, even though I am now Catholic, there is no such thing as a prayer that is more beautiful than another prayer.

Same with language. For many years, my husband and I were involved (as supporters) of the Wycliffe Bible Translators.

These missionaries have the goal of translating the Bible into every language in the world. There are about 2000 languages that have no written portion or perhaps only a rudimentary portion. Wycliffe translators move into a country or tribe and spend 30-40 years writing down the itinerant alphabet, analyzing and writing down the grammar and syntax of the language, collecting the vocabulary, eventually translating Bible (usually the New Testament), writing down the itinerant music of the people, and along with all this, teaching the people how to read and write their own language.

Without the WBT, many of these itinerant languages would become extinct, absorbed into the official language or one of the business languages of the country.

To the Wycliffe Bible translators, and therefore, to me and my husband, ALL langauges are beautiful and deserive to be preserved. Wycliffe translators call the itinerant languages “heart languages.”

Perhaps because of our background with WBT, we have a very difficult time seeing the value of a “universal” language for Christians, especially a universal language that is based in Europe and spoken originally by Caucasians. We would rather see the Gospel preached and prayers said in ALL the languages of ALL the peoples of the world. That’s what we were raised to believe is the best way, and to be honest, I still think it is best.

In Revelation 5:9, the Bible says “Worthy are Thou to take the book, and to break its seals; for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” This verse is one reason why WBT do their work–because they believe that ALL tribes, tongues (languages), peoples, and nations are included in God’s plan of salvation, and they want ALL these people to hear the Gospel in their own language and believe in Jesus and profess His Name in their own language.

So perhaps is one reason why Latin in the Mass doesn’t do anything for me other than confuse. In my faith tradition, which I practiced for 47 years, there is no such thing as a language that is more beautiful than another language. All languages are beautiful.

A poster above made the case that Latin is much more charitable and equalizing, as all people in the congregation have the same “advantage” (or IMO, disadvantage!) during Mass. This poster implied that those who don’t want Latin in the Mass are “unwelcoming” to people outside of their language.

I would dispute this. I would say that rather than trying to create a “unity” through language, the ideal for Christians is to rejoice with other Christians because we are “of One Blood,” even if we don’t understand their language. We need to learn to appreciate their language and respect it even when we don’t understand it. We do not need to understand a vernacular to be able to worship with other Christians.

Those of us who live in the United States often have opportunities to travel to other lands. IMO, we are the “self-centered” ones if we expect to be able to worship at Mass in a language that we are familiar with. Instead, we should willingly enter into worship with the itinerant people and enjoy their language, even though we don’t understand it. That attitude, to me, is the most “welcoming.”

We DO understand what is happening in Mass–we all know that Mass is not a “teaching” service, but rather, a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary. This “event” does not require a “language.” It happens no matter what language is spoken by those who are present.

I’m not posting this just to be argumentative or to invite a rebuttal. Your rebuttal will not erase 47 years of teaching and personal experiences.

Intellectually I can accept that a universal language of worship is an interesting idea. But the Church does NOT teach that a universal worship language is necessary for Catholics. That seems to be the opinion of many who enjoy, on a personal level, the more ancient forms of worship.

But in reality, the current teaching of the Church seems to be that the vernacular (any language) is wholly approved for use in the Mass, and active participation by the congregation, defined as actually saying or singing the words of the liturgy and understanding their meaning, is the “norm.”

The purpose for using Latin in parts of the OF Mass seems to be more for the purpose of preserving the unique Catholic tradition and history and presenting this to the non-Catholic seekers. This is an excellent goal and a way of drawing in non-Christians, as well as non-Catholic Christians who have floundered over throughout their lives through the confusing morass of Protestant worship styles. I’ll gladly go along with the Church on this one.

But I cannot comprehend how “Latin” is any more “holy” or “reverent” than any other language. That concept does not compute in my mind, probably because of my upbringing. I’m guessing that there are a lot of other Catholics who will find themselves where I am.

 

[ProVobis]

Perhaps this is where some of the “disconnect” is in this discussion.

I’m an ex-Protestant, from the evangelical Protestant churches.

I have absolutely no comprehension of what “beautiful prayers” means. To me, that concept doesn’t exist.

ALL prayers are beautiful to an evangelical Protestant, including the simple “Help me, God!” prayer of the desperate. We are taught that God doesn’t care what our words are or how articulate we are, but rather, what the attitude of our heart is.

So to me, even though I am now Catholic, there is no such thing as a prayer that is more beautiful than another prayer.

Same with language. For many years, my husband and I were involved (as supporters) of the Wycliffe Bible Translators.

These missionaries have the goal of translating the Bible into every language in the world. There are about 2000 languages that have no written portion or perhaps only a rudimentary portion. Wycliffe translators move into a country or tribe and spend 30-40 years writing down the itinerant alphabet, analyzing and writing down the grammar and syntax of the language, collecting the vocabulary, eventually translating Bible (usually the New Testament), writing down the itinerant music of the people, and along with all this, teaching the people how to read and write their own language.
…

Cat, you’ve only demonstrated Dom Prosper Gueranger’s point (see post 154):

“Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. . . . The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits, and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of the cult than most do the Protestant people. At every hour of the day, divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. The faithful Catholic, who assists, leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart form the sermons, he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the ear of the latter doesn’t hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning .… . . . We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . .”

 

[ConstantineTG]

Cat, you’ve only demonstrated Dom Prosper Gueranger’s point (see post 154):

You’re insistent on calling anyone who doesn’t want to use Latin as people who hates Latin. I think you need to improve your understanding of hatred. Just because one doesn’t want to use Latin doesn’t mean one hates Latin. That is only your interpretation of it but not the reality of it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You’re insistent on calling anyone who doesn’t want to use Latin as people who hates Latin. I think you need to improve your understanding of hatred. Just because one doesn’t want to use Latin doesn’t mean one hates Latin. That is only your interpretation of it but not the reality of it.

Well, there is a kind of ‘academic hatred’.

Now here’s the thing. Latin is ‘called for’ in certain parts of the Rite of the Mass. The documents in Vatican II are very specific about this. (So it isn’t just ‘the old days’ when it was called for.)

And it isn’t a question of whether people can kind of ‘vote on’ the subject.

Mistakes were made back in the 1970s and some people felt that ‘vernacular’ meant, “ain’t nuthin but mah OWN language gonna be in this Mass, no Latin or Greek stuff from the MIDDLE AGES, we’re what’s happenin’ now”.

They were wrong.

Now, either we accept that in the U.S. pretty much back in 1970, some of our leaders (probably well intentioned) were WRONG. . .and now we need to put things RIGHT. . .

or we don’t.

if we DON’T accept that it is wrong not to have some Latin (as the Church has specifically stated is required). . .

WHY don’t we accept it?

That’s the question.

If we don’t accept it, is it because we don’t want to accept that the Church (and not ‘we the people’) can make the decision? If so, then it is more than a dislike of Latin that is the problem. . .it is a dislike of legitimate authority. And that is worse than hatred of Latin itself.

If we simply don’t like Latin because we feel it’s anything from a ‘relic of the old days’ to ‘too hard’ to "ewwww’.and we go to huge lengths to try to justify that it would be wrong to have because of the effect on people . .well, then it IS a hatred of Latin itself that is the problem. It is MORE than dislike, because simple dislike doesn’t lead us to try to argue about how ‘wrong’ something is. We say we don’t like it and that’s that. But to say that we don’t like something when the Church has said it is something good, holy, and indeed necessary. . .that would be beyond simple ‘dislike’, yes?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, there is a kind of ‘academic hatred’.

Now here’s the thing. Latin is ‘called for’ in certain parts of the Rite of the Mass. The documents in Vatican II are very specific about this. (So it isn’t just ‘the old days’ when it was called for.)

And it isn’t a question of whether people can kind of ‘vote on’ the subject.

Mistakes were made back in the 1970s and some people felt that ‘vernacular’ meant, “ain’t nuthin but mah OWN language gonna be in this Mass, no Latin or Greek stuff from the MIDDLE AGES, we’re what’s happenin’ now”.

They were wrong.

Now, either we accept that in the U.S. pretty much back in 1970, some of our leaders (probably well intentioned) were WRONG. . .and now we need to put things RIGHT. . .

or we don’t.

if we DON’T accept that it is wrong not to have some Latin (as the Church has specifically stated is required). . .

WHY don’t we accept it?

That’s the question.

If we don’t accept it, is it because we don’t want to accept that the Church (and not ‘we the people’) can make the decision? If so, then it is more than a dislike of Latin that is the problem. . .it is a dislike of legitimate authority. And that is worse than hatred of Latin itself.

If we simply don’t like Latin because we feel it’s anything from a ‘relic of the old days’ to ‘too hard’ to "ewwww’.and we go to huge lengths to try to justify that it would be wrong to have because of the effect on people . .well, then it IS a hatred of Latin itself that is the problem. It is MORE than dislike, because simple dislike doesn’t lead us to try to argue about how ‘wrong’ something is. We say we don’t like it and that’s that. But to say that we don’t like something when the Church has said it is something good, holy, and indeed necessary. . .that would be beyond simple ‘dislike’, yes?

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?

We can point to Church documents all we want all day long, but what the Church does clearly shows her intention. And its not about hating Latin. The Church wants the people to appreciate the Mass in their own level. Even the Apostles taught in local languages and adopted local customs so people can understand and appreciate the teachings of Christ better.

Americans always complain about foreigners in the US not being able to speak English. Is that about hating other cultures or other languages? Maybe in some instances, but I believe most of the time its just a genuine desire to be able to communicate effectively in a place where one language is the norm. Let us not make excuses to make one stance holier than the other, this is the holier than thou attitude that many see so negatively on traditionalists. Stop painting other people in an ugly light when they are not what they are made to seem to be. Not just because people doesn’t want to use Latin doesn’t mean they hate it. As much as the same group of people may not want Spanish in their Mass, its not about hating Spanish, or any other language.

 

[dmorgan]

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?

We can point to Church documents all we want all day long, but what the Church does clearly shows her intention. And its not about hating Latin. The Church wants the people to appreciate the Mass in their own level. Even the Apostles taught in local languages and adopted local customs so people can understand and appreciate the teachings of Christ better.

Americans always complain about foreigners in the US not being able to speak English. Is that about hating other cultures or other languages? Maybe in some instances, but I believe most of the time its just a genuine desire to be able to communicate effectively in a place where one language is the norm. Let us not make excuses to make one stance holier than the other, this is the holier than thou attitude that many see so negatively on traditionalists. Stop painting other people in an ugly light when they are not what they are made to seem to be. Not just because people doesn’t want to use Latin doesn’t mean they hate it. As much as the same group of people may not want Spanish in their Mass, its not about hating Spanish, or any other language.

1. The Church re-translated the English Missal because the earlier translation was not faithful to the LATIN that the Official Missal is written in. This has been discussed ad infinitum (thats Latin) and to use that to justify your argument is disingenuous.
2. Tantum Ergo gave a valid argument that the document from V-II directed Latin to continue to be used in the Mass. You claim to follow the teaching of the Church. Ergo follow the teaching as set forth in Sacrosactum Concilium. the Mass we have now is not the Mass as desired by the Fathers of the council, at least not what most desired.
3. Please do not invoke the “holier than thou” argument since all of us who seek to restore the tradition of Holy Mother Church are quite tired of having this tripe thrown at us for simply wanting to see the Sacredness of the Mass restored. One Universal Church, One universal language.

God Bless

 

[ConstantineTG]

1. The Church re-translated the English Missal because the earlier translation was not faithful to the LATIN that the Official Missal is written in. This has been discussed ad infinitum (thats Latin) and to use that to justify your argument is disingenuous.

Again, if the Church’s intention is to do away with the vernacular, why put the effort in updating the translation? Its not disingenous, its fact. Yes, there are faults in the previous translation. But the Church wants the liturgy to be available in English and wants it to be right, that is why there is an effort to get it right. Otherwise, just abandon the English Missal. Could have saved more time and money.

1. Tantum Ergo gave a valid argument that the document from V-II directed Latin to continue to be used in the Mass. You claim to follow the teaching of the Church. Ergo follow the teaching as set forth in Sacrosactum Concilium. the Mass we have now is not the Mass as desired by the Fathers of the council, at least not what most desired.

Here’s the problem, people here who’s agenda is to have the Mass only in Latin over-reads what the Church says in her documents. 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.

Kinda like the COTT vs. CITH issue. Everyone says the Pope only gives COTT therefore he only wants COTT. Then the Pope says in his interview he’s not against CITH.

Its a matter of people reading something and understanding it in a way they want to understand it even if the speaker doesn’t mean it that way. That is what is being disingenious.

1. Please do not invoke the “holier than thou” argument since all of us who seek to restore the tradition of Holy Mother Church are quite tired of having this tripe thrown at us for simply wanting to see the Sacredness of the Mass restored. One Universal Church, One universal language.

God Bless

Then please ask these traditionalists here to stop making crazy accusations that people hate something when they don’t. I’m not speaking about the want in Latin, but these baseless and false accusations that people hate Latin.

 

[dmorgan]

Again, if the Church’s intention is to do away with the vernacular, why put the effort in updating the translation? Its not disingenous, its fact. Yes, there are faults in the previous translation. But the Church wants the liturgy to be available in English and wants it to be right, that is why there is an effort to get it right. Otherwise, just abandon the English Missal. Could have saved more time and money.

You have to start somewhere, and since the last ICEL translation was so far of the mark, this was a good place to start. From S. C.:36.
"1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above."

Here’s the problem, people here who’s agenda is to have the Mass only in Latin over-reads what the Church says in her documents. 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.

When I want all Latin I go to a Tridentine Mass. I would like, however to see Latin used in the Novus Ordo where applicable to retain continuity with tradition.
From S.C. 23. “That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress Careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing”.

Kinda like the COTT vs. CITH issue. Everyone says the Pope only gives COTT therefore he only wants COTT. Then the Pope says in his interview he’s not against CITH.

Its a matter of people reading something and understanding it in a way they want to understand it even if the speaker doesn’t mean it that way. That is what is being disingenious.
CITH was an usurpation of Magisterial authority by certain +Bishops in western Europe that spread to the west. I believe an indult was given when the +Bishops refused to yield to the Magisterial authority to stop the practice. This is the fault of the collegiality established by V-II but a different argument. The fact that the Holy Father prefers COTT should be an example to everyone else.

Then please ask these traditionalists here to stop making crazy accusations that people hate something when they don’t. I’m not speaking about the want in Latin, but these baseless and false accusations that people hate Latin.

OK, y’all tradies please stop making crazy accusations that the modernists hate the church. Happy?

What I would do wish is that the Council Fathers had read this over and over again before continuing with the rest of the document:
S.C. 1. 10. 10. Nevertheless the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows. For the aim and object of apostolic works is that all who are made sons of God by faith and baptism should come together to praise God in the midst of His Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and to eat the Lord’s supper.

God Bless

 

[ProVobis]

Here’s the problem, people here who’s agenda is to have the Mass only in Latin over-reads what the Church says in her documents. Latin is to be maintained, but that doesn’t mean its all-Latin all-the-time.

But we have all-vernacular all-the-time now. How can this be justified by this papal act attempting to achieve unity and spritual harmony? Or are we over-reading again?

In April 1974 Pope Paul VI sent to every bishop in the world a booklet of some of the simplest selections of Gregorian Chant, much of it drawn from the Graduale Romanum. This booklet, called Jubilate Deo, was intended as a “minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant”. It is, in other words, an official Latin “core repertoire” for the Roman Rite. It was prepared, the Pope said, in order “to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living tradition of the past. Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse Gregorian chant the place which is due to it” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Pope Paul VI gave permission for the selections in Jubilate Deo to be freely reprinted. The booklet was accompanied by a letter in which the Holy Father made this request of the bishops:

“Would you therefore, in collaboration with the competent diocesan and national agencies for the liturgy, sacred music and catechetics, decide on the best ways of teaching the faithful the Latin chants of Jubilate Deo and of having them sing them…. You will thus be performing a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Jubilate Deo contains simple chant settings in Latin of the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation, Agnus Dei. It also provides musical settings for the dialogues between priest and people, such as before the Preface, and the Ite Missa est, the response to the Prayer of the Faithful, and others.

An, expanded edition of Jubilate Deo was later issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1987.

adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html

 

[malphono]

But we have all-vernacular all-the-time now. How can this be justified by this papal act attempting to achieve unity? Or are we over-reading again?

Some people evidently don’t see or understand (or don’t want to) what the Church has said, and continues to say, about the preservation of liturgical language. Apparently they are of the opinion that the use of Latin (or any of the ancient and venerable liturgical languages) is a violation of their “right” to all-vernacular-all-the-time. The very idea that the Church would dare to impinge on their “right” to this sends them into spasms. I find it interesting that they habitually say “we don’t hate Latin” and “it’s fine for those who want Latin” etc, but then they go on to interpret even the partial use of Latin as an assault against them and their ideals. Go figure.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Some people evidently don’t see or understand (or don’t want to) what the Church has said, and continues to say, about the preservation of liturgical language. Apparently they are of the opinion that the use of Latin (or any of the ancient and venerable liturgical languages) is a violation of their “right” to all-vernacular-all-the-time. The very idea that the Church would dare to impinge on their “right” to this sends them into spasms. I find it interesting that they habitually say “we don’t hate Latin” and “it’s fine for those who want Latin” etc, but then they go on to interpret even the partial use of Latin as an assault against them and their ideals. Go figure.

I can’t understand it either. I’m not asking for the EF. I am asking for the OF as it should be done, as it was intended to be done.

I can’t understand why we should keep propagating a mistake (the idea that the OF, the 'vernacular", should not have ANY Latin is a mistake, and is proven to be a mistake by the documents of Vatican II) instead of trying to CORRECT the mistake.

The correction is NOT to make the Mass ‘all Latin’. The correction is to have the Mass vernacular in the parts where it is supposed to be vernacular, and Latin in the parts where it is supposed to be Latin.

It seems so simple to me. What is the problem with it?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I can’t understand it either. I’m not asking for the EF. I am asking for the OF as it should be done, as it was intended to be done.

I can’t understand why we should keep propagating a mistake (the idea that the OF, the 'vernacular", should not have ANY Latin is a mistake, and is proven to be a mistake by the documents of Vatican II) instead of trying to CORRECT the mistake.

The correction is NOT to make the Mass ‘all Latin’. The correction is to have the Mass vernacular in the parts where it is supposed to be vernacular, and Latin in the parts where it is supposed to be Latin.

It seems so simple to me. What is the problem with it?

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.

 

[japhy]

Why do people assume that people who promote the use of Latin in the Mass are opposed to the vernacular? I’m interested in the implementation of Vatican II concerning the use of Latin in the liturgy. I don’t want the vernacular to go away (like Latin went away). I want the vernacular and the Latin to co-exist, just like Vatican II expected them to.

I have nothing against the vernacular.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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

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

I’m interested in the implementation of Vatican II concerning the use of Latin in the liturgy. I don’t want the vernacular to go away (like Latin went away). I want the vernacular and the Latin to co-exist, just like Vatican II expected them to.

I have nothing against the vernacular.

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.

 

[ProVobis]

The correction is NOT to make the Mass ‘all Latin’. The correction is to have the Mass vernacular in the parts where it is supposed to be vernacular, and Latin in the parts where it is supposed to be Latin.

And better late than never.

 

[Cat]

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.

I don’t hate it. That’s too strong a word.

But I do dislike it.

I’ve explained in earlier posts that it’s difficult to overcome 47 years of evangelical Protestantism and become a Latin lover. I have been taught all my life that all languages are beautiful and equal, and that in order to respond to the Gospel, humans must understand the Gospel.

I understand completely that my personal preferences do not matter when it comes to the liturgy. If and when Latin is used in the Mass, I usually dislike it, but I won’t protest or make any kind of fuss. Instead, I’ll go ahead and quietly read or sing the translation (usually on the opposite page or on the bottom of the page) in order to fully understand and appreciate what’s being said/sung.

I would like to suggest to those who keep bringing up someone’s ancient writing to “prove” that those of us who “dislike” Latin are anti-Christ/anti-Church–stop doing this. We certainly aren’t going to come around to liking Latin when people accuse us of being anti-Christ or anti-Church. On the contrary, it makes me want to avoid traditional Masses even more, as I don’t wish to associate with people who accuse me of being anti-Christ/anti-Church just because my personal preference, developed over almost five decades of active church life, is my own heart language, which the Church currently allows in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. IMO, this kind of condemnation, using ancient and non-authoritative writing, sounds like “being holier than the Church.” I’m not comfortable in the presence of people like this, and so I will avoid them.

Instead, be more welcoming and pleasant, and SHOW us with your charity and holy lives the value of using foreign language phrases in the Mass. I currently don’t get it–so show me, don’t tell me, what I’m missing out on.

 

[dmorgan]

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.

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