Latin? In MY Mass?

[ProVobis]

Would anyone else like to answer?

Just my observation. Perhaps the problem of diversified opinions on this is the terminology being used. Maybe we should avoid the use of the word “Latin” altogether. I heard someone actually cry “We don’t want to go back to the Latin” when he heard “consubstantial” would be used in the new creed. These people are freaking out bigtime. Never mind we always had vernacular readings and sermons, novenas, rosaries, Leonine prayers, even in the pre-Vatican II days. A few words of Latin and they’re calling it a Latin Mass and a Mass that has to be avoided. It’s probably something that has been taught them because there is no rational explanation for believing Latin is harmful to someone.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

No offense but some are pushing for all-Latin all-the-time. Thats the problem with these kinds of threads, it becomes and either or rather than understanding that both the Latin and the vernacular can co-exist, either mixed together or have an all-vernacular Mass and all-Latin Mass either in the OF or EF. Some people just think there’s one solution, but if you look at our Church there’s a wide difference of traditions with many different Liturgies. We are not limited in worshiping God one way, and we are not limited in one language.

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?

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 just responding to those who think that the promotion of the vernacular is against the promotion of Latin. If you haven’t noticed, I jumped in to this thread rather late. I did not start any of this but responded to whats already here.

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

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.

I agree with that. But it seems other people think that the only way to promote Latin is to drive out the vernacular. Some people think that retaining Latin means not using anything else.

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?

Thing is this. The official interpreter of all Canon Law and all Church documents is the Pope. We can quote Church documents all we want all day, if the Pope say it does not apply or it means something else, who are we to say otherwise? The fact that the Church does what it is doing today points that the Church desires to bring the Liturgy to the level of the Masses. But also Latin is indeed retained on so many levels. But retaining Latin doesn’t mean there has to be Latin in each and every Mass. You didn’t quote me when I said give the Latin to those who seek it, and for those who do not then give the vernacular.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Just my observation. Perhaps the problem of diversified opinions on this is the terminology being used. Maybe we should avoid the use of the word “Latin” altogether. I heard someone actually cry “We don’t want to go back to the Latin” when he heard “consubstantial” would be used in the new creed. These people are freaking out bigtime. Never mind we always had vernacular readings and sermons, novenas, rosaries, Leonine prayers, even in the pre-Vatican II days. A few words of Latin and they’re calling it a Latin Mass and a Mass that has to be avoided. It’s probably something that has been taught them because there is no rational explanation for believing Latin is harmful to someone.

You should display empathy and try to see this from their viewpoint. I think the problem is you expect every other Catholic to have the same level of appreciation of Latin as you do. Why not take time to understand why hearing the entire Mass in a language they understand is important to them? Instead of trying to place your own views and appreciation of Latin on everyone else.

 

[japhy]

No offense but some are pushing for all-Latin all-the-time. Thats the problem with these kinds of threads, it becomes and either or rather than understanding that both the Latin and the vernacular can co-exist, either mixed together or have an all-vernacular Mass and all-Latin Mass either in the OF or EF.

But it seems other people think that the only way to promote Latin is to drive out the vernacular. Some people think that retaining Latin means not using anything else.

Are people voicing that opinion on this thread? I didn’t notice it. I started this thread specifically to find out why people are opposed to the use of Latin along with the vernacular at Mass. I did not start it to oppose the vernacular, or to promote an all-Latin liturgy.

I’m just responding to those who think that the promotion of the vernacular is against the promotion of Latin.

Just as some promote Latin against the vernacular, there are some who promote the vernacular against the Latin. There are people who want nothing to do with Latin, and who think that the vernacular was introduced so that we would never have to deal with Latin at Mass again, and who balk at the thought of re-introducing even a little Latin into the Mass. “Vatican II got rid of that,” they might say.

This thread is aimed at trying to figure out why people react so unpleasantly to the thought of Latin being re-introduced, even only to the degree envisioned by Vatican II and the popes since then.

The official interpreter of all Canon Law and all Church documents is the Pope. We can quote Church documents all we want all day, if the Pope say it does not apply or it means something else, who are we to say otherwise?

Some of us have quoted Paul VI in Voluntari Obsequens (the letter accompanying Iubilate Deo). But most bishops didn’t implement it. The disconnect (and some would go so far as to call it disobedience) there is one of the factors leading some of us to argue that many bishops have not carried out the reforms of Vatican II properly – how many bishops seriously take steps to enable their congregations to make a few of the responses in Latin, as called for by Vatican II, as echoed in Eucharisticum Mysterium and in Voluntari Obsequens and in the GIRM today?

Or is that that the negligence of the bishops in this regard is the way the Church intends this reform to be carried out?

But also Latin is indeed retained on so many levels.

What do you mean by that?

But retaining Latin doesn’t mean there has to be Latin in each and every Mass.

Well, I haven’t said that. I’m curious first why Latin is not a regular part of the average Catholic’s liturgical experience. “Regular” needn’t mean daily or weekly, but it should certainly mean more often than the erroneous “we do the Kyrie in Greek at Lent and Advent.”

But… why shouldn’t there be Latin at every Mass? (Is it because that means part of the English translation of the Missal would go unused, and since Rome has approved a translation of the whole Missal, that means Rome envisions that the whole translation will be used?)

(Let’s turn the question around: Does introducing the vernacular mean there has to be the vernacular in each and every Mass?)

You didn’t quote me when I said give the Latin to those who seek it, and for those who do not then give the vernacular.

But this divides us into the all-vernacular and the not-all-vernacular. Vatican II says that the faithful should be able to make the responses in Latin. Why divide ourselves over that? Don’t we already have enough to divide ourselves over?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are people voicing that opinion on this thread? I didn’t notice it. I started this thread specifically to find out why people are opposed to the use of Latin along with the vernacular at Mass. I did not start it to oppose the vernacular, or to promote an all-Latin liturgy.

I apologize if I give that impression. Sometimes in the gist of replying to one’s post, I sort of integrate another one’s.

Just as some promote Latin against the vernacular, there are some who promote the vernacular against the Latin. There are people who want nothing to do with Latin, and who think that the vernacular was introduced so that we would never have to deal with Latin at Mass again, and who balk at the thought of re-introducing even a little Latin into the Mass. “Vatican II got rid of that,” they might say.

But we should also repect that some people may want an all-vernacular Mass. To most people it really makes a huge difference that the language of Liturgy is something you can appreciate and understand without any extra effort. We should see that one’s desire for an all-vernacular means he’s denying another one of his/her desire of an all-Latin Mass, whether OF or EF.

This thread is aimed at trying to figure out why people react so unpleasantly to the thought of Latin being re-introduced, even only to the degree envisioned by Vatican II and the popes since then.

Yes but its also truning into “you must accept Latin no matter what.” I think where the Church is today is what the Holy Spirit envisions it to be today, right now. For good or bad. Either its bad and we learn from it and better the Church in the future, or what we have now is good and will continue in goodness to the future. Either way we should always put our trust in God and His chosen and called men who lead and guide our faith.

Some of us have quoted Paul VI in Voluntari Obsequens (the letter accompanying Iubilate Deo). But most bishops didn’t implement it. The disconnect (and some would go so far as to call it disobedience) there is one of the factors leading some of us to argue that many bishops have not carried out the reforms of Vatican II properly – how many bishops seriously take steps to enable their congregations to make a few of the responses in Latin, as called for by Vatican II, as echoed in Eucharisticum Mysterium and in Voluntari Obsequens and in the GIRM today?

Or is that that the negligence of the bishops in this regard is the way the Church intends this reform to be carried out?

Is it indeed the negligence of the Bishops of the negligence of the laity? As I said in another post and this came from Bro JR, not myself as I learned this from him, that the Pope is the ultimate and final interpreter of Canon Law and all Church documents. He can say whether a law applies or not, or if it means one way or another. Maybe the way we interpret the law is not the way the Pope and the Bishops interpret and understand it. Ultimately they are given the authority in the Church, not us. So their interpretation is correct always even if we don’t agree with it.

What do you mean by that?

Latin is still a part of the Roman Church and of the Roman Catholic faith even if people themselves don’t interface with the Latin. Since all Church documents are kept in Latin for all times, then Latin safeguards our faith. Even though what may be handed down to the people themselves is in the vernacular, including an all-vernacular Mass. Its like with currency, the traditional model of a currency (which the US no longer follows) is that a paper bill would have an equivalent amount in gold in a reserve or bank somewhere. Latin will be the gold in our vaults, the paper money is the vernacular. Its what people use everyday, but the value of that paper is preserved in gold. But you can still also publicly trade in gold, as you can still use Latin for Liturgy or for prayers. It doesn’t always have to be kept in the vault.

Well, I haven’t said that. I’m curious first why Latin is not a regular part of the average Catholic’s liturgical experience. “Regular” needn’t mean daily or weekly, but it should certainly mean more often than the erroneous “we do the Kyrie in Greek at Lent and Advent.”

My perspective is that the faith is not dependent on the language. Why does Latin have to be part of one’s liturgical experience? I go to a Ukrainian Byzantine parish and we use all English. They Bishops made that move because they want the Ukrainian Cathoilcs here in America to carry the traditions and faith in a language they understand.

 

[ConstantineTG]

CONTINUED

But… why shouldn’t there be Latin at every Mass? (Is it because that means part of the English translation of the Missal would go unused, and since Rome has approved a translation of the whole Missal, that means Rome envisions that the whole translation will be used?)

I don’t think there should be. I think the faith can be transmitted and practiced in every language. If people see the value in it, by all means. But if they don’t, then Latin is nothing that just for show. If the language detaches the people from the prayers, what is the worth of those prayers? Those who have appreciation for Latin should definitely have it, but not to trample over those others who appreciate the Mass in the vernacular.

(Let’s turn the question around: Does introducing the vernacular mean there has to be the vernacular in each and every Mass?)

Same answer as above. There are those who appreciate in Latin and should have a Mass either partially or entirely in Latin. If a parish can have 8 Masses a day offered in 3-4 different languages, why can’t Latin be one of them? They should.

But this divides us into the all-vernacular and the not-all-vernacular. Vatican II says that the faithful should be able to make the responses in Latin. Why divide ourselves over that? Don’t we already have enough to divide ourselves over?

Again, I wouldn’t hold the weight of the document over what the Church is actually doing today. The Pope and the Bishops have already made a decision on what is to be done today. Can it change in the future? It sure can, wherever the Holy Spirit guides us. But today this is what we do and for me I trust that this is how the Church interprets the documents she has. Perhaps keeping people in the Catholic faith and growing their faith and love for Christ and His Church is a more immediate concern than learning Latin.

 

[trish2009]

Just my observation. Perhaps the problem of diversified opinions on this is the terminology being used. Maybe we should avoid the use of the word “Latin” altogether. I heard someone actually cry “We don’t want to go back to the Latin” when he heard “consubstantial” would be used in the new creed. These people are freaking out bigtime. Never mind we always had vernacular readings and sermons, novenas, rosaries, Leonine prayers, even in the pre-Vatican II days. A few words of Latin and they’re calling it a Latin Mass and a Mass that has to be avoided. It’s probably something that has been taught them because there is no rational explanation for believing Latin is harmful to someone.

The comments that I read in this thread seem to point to “I don’t want it”, “I don’t like it”, “I won’t understand it”, “I prefer the vernacular”. The theme seems to be me, me, and me. Doesn’t anyone desire to conform to the wishes of the Church/Pope?

I don’t recall hearing anyone dying from being asked to learn a little Latin.

I suppose if the Pope reintroduced No Meat On Fridays, we would hear the same kinds of comments which seem to be a bit self-centered.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The comments that I read in this thread seem to point to “I don’t want it”, “I don’t like it”, “I won’t understand it”, “I prefer the vernacular”. The theme seems to be me, me, and me. Doesn’t anyone desire to conform to the wishes of the Church/Pope?

I don’t recall hearing anyone dying from being asked to learn a little Latin.

I suppose if the Pope reintroduced No Meat On Fridays, we would hear the same kinds of comments which seem to be a bit self-centered.

Thing is, using the vernacular to preach and for Liturgy has been done since day 1. Its not unreasonable request by the people. God put on our skin and spoke our language so that He can bring us closer to Him. Why can’t His liturgy be brought to us in the vernacular?

And following this reasoning, why is the Liturgy in Latin at all? Would it have killed the Romans to learn Greek? In fact, most of them probably did speak some Greek in the First Century and the following centuries.

The greatest thing about the story of salvation is God met man where man was. To lift man up, God himself became man, spoke man’s language, walked with man. I don’t see why Liturgy has to be an effort. I’d rather see better catechisis so that Catholic understand their faith better. If they’re going to devote time to learn anything about the Catholic faith, it should be the teachings and the faith itself instead of a language. And I still maintain in my earlier comment that anyone who appreciates the value of Latin should have access to it.

 

[ProVobis]

But… why shouldn’t there be Latin at every Mass? (Is it because that means part of the English translation of the Missal would go unused, and since Rome has approved a translation of the whole Missal, that means Rome envisions that the whole translation will be used?)

That would be what I would question too. Why is it assumed the Vatican commands us to use the entire translation, especially when you hear comments such as this from Cardinal Arinze in 2006:

"Moreover, the Latin language has a certain stability which daily spoken languages, where words change often in shades of meaning, cannot have.
…
Latin has the characteristic of words and expressions retaining their meaning generation after generation.
…
The Latin language has a nobility and dignity which are not negligible (cf. Veterum Sapientia, nn. 5, 6, 7). We can add that Latin is concise, precise and poetically measured.
…
As already quoted, article 36 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy began by enacting that “particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite”. Article 54 required that steps be taken, “enabling the faithful to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them”. In the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours, “in accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, clerics are to retain the Latin language” (SC, n. 101).
…
it is not difficult to envisage how demanding and delicate the work of translation must be. Even more difficult is the question of adaptation and inculturation especially when we think of the sacredness of the sacramental rites, the centuries-old tradition of the Latin Rite, and the close link between faith and worship encapsuled in the old formula: lex orandi, lex credendi.
…
The genius of the Latin Rite should be respected. The triple repetition is one of its characteristics. Examples are “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”; “Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison”; “Agnus Dei qui tollis…”, three times. A close study of the “Gloria in Excelsis Deo” also shows “triplets”. Translations should neither kill nor flatten out such a characteristic.
…
The Latin liturgy expresses not only facts but also our feelings, our sentiments, for example, in front of God’s transcendence, majesty, mercy and boundless love (cf. Liturgiam Authenticam, n. 25). Expressions like “Te igitur, clementissime Pater”, “Supplices te rogamus”, “Propitius esto”, “veneremur cernui”, “Omnipotens et misericors Dominus”, “nos servi tui”, should not be deflated and democratized by some translating iconoclast.
…
Some of these Latin expressions are difficult to translate. The best experts in liturgy, classics, patrology, theology, spirituality, music and literature are needed…

I interpret this to mean use the Latin texts as much as possible but if you really must use any translation for any part of the Mass, we prefer the new ones as a fill-in for those parts. But remember the Mass is still Latin-based in its theology and priests are required and laity are encouraged to study it and pray in it.