latin mass

[YoungTradCath]

I’m interested to see what others have to say about this. I’ve never heard of anything like that before. Where did you read this?

I’m not saying you’re wrong. I really am honestly wondering because I’ve never heard of such a thing.

Well, I’m not sure about the part where he says that a Latin-devoid mass is an abuse. But, I do know that the original publication language of the Missale Romanum is Latin, and that it is the default language. That’s for all editions, including, but not limited to, the NO edition. The vernacular editions have to be approved by the Vatican, and if the Vatican finds them deficient, then they may not be used, and the NO mass in Latin must be used instead. You can’t just translate, then BAM say a mass. There’s a process.

In one of his writings, John XXIII (who convened Vatican II) said very clearly that Latin is to be upheld, and that the liturgy should not be done in the vulgar tongues.

 

[anp1215]

Well, I’m not sure about the part where he says that a Latin-devoid mass is an abuse. But, I do know that the original publication language of the Missale Romanum is Latin, and that it is the default language. That’s for all editions, including, but not limited to, the NO edition. The vernacular editions have to be approved by the Vatican, and if the Vatican finds them deficient, then they may not be used, and the NO mass in Latin must be used instead. You can’t just translate, then BAM say a mass. There’s a process.

In one of his writings, John XXIII (who convened Vatican II) said very clearly that Latin is to be upheld, and that the liturgy should not be done in the vulgar tongues.

Right. I was talking about the “Mass without Latin being an abuse” part. I am curious as to where this came from. I’m sure if there is a document that says this someone will post it.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m interested to see what others have to say about this. I’ve never heard of anything like that before. Where did you read this?

I’m not saying you’re wrong. I really am honestly wondering because I’ve never heard of such a thing.

Per Vatican II:

1. § 1. Linguae latinae usus, salvo particulari iure, in Ritibus latinis servetur.
2. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Note period at end. Can’t be much clearer than that.

Also from Veterum Sapientia:

…the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

 

[anp1215]

Per Vatican II:

1. § 1. Linguae latinae usus, salvo particulari iure, in Ritibus latinis servetur.
2. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Note period at end. Can’t be much clearer than that.

Also from Veterum Sapientia:

I don’t know, it doesn’t seem that clear to me. “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” OK, but does that mean that every single Roman Catholic Mass must contain Latin or else it is abusive? If so…how much Latin? What needs to be in Latin? The Pater Noster? The Agnus Dei? Or can they just use a Latin pronoun here and there? Please help me to understand.
The second document says that the language should be “non vernacular,” but we know that Mass is allowed in the vernacular. Help me to understand this.

 

[mick321]

I don’t know, it doesn’t seem that clear to me. “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” OK, but does that mean that every single Roman Catholic Mass must contain Latin or else it is abusive? If so…how much Latin? What needs to be in Latin? The Pater Noster? The Agnus Dei? Or can they just use a Latin pronoun here and there? Please help me to understand.
The second document says that the language should be “non vernacular,” but we know that Mass is allowed in the vernacular. Help me to understand this.

How much Latin?

The Extraordinary Form has the proper amount of Latin.

Clear enough?

 

[anp1215]

How much Latin?

The Extraordinary Form has the proper amount of Latin.

Clear enough?

What? No, I don’t find that clear at all. So the EF has the “proper amount” of Latin and all other forms are lacking? What are you trying to say?

 

[ProVobis]

The second document says that the language should be “non vernacular,” but we know that Mass is allowed in the vernacular. Help me to understand this.

I just quoted you what were in the Vatican documents. That’s what you asked for. I can provide you documents against communion in the hand, altar girls, and other things if you want as well, but I don’t have the power to stop any allowances to the contrary. Only the bishops and pastors do and that’s all I’m going to say about that.

 

[anp1215]

I just quoted you what were in the Vatican documents. That’s what you asked for. I can provide you documents against communion in the hand, altar girls, and other things if you want as well, but I don’t have the power to stop any allowances to the contrary. Only the bishops and pastors do and that’s all I’m going to say about that.

Uh, ok. Thanks I guess.

 

[mrld20]

Wow… This has all been somewhat helpful I guess… Thanks…

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Wow… This has all been somewhat helpful I guess… Thanks…

I should hope so. There is alot of good info on this thread.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[TradionalWay]

Even though most people and most Catholics don’t understand Latin, when the Latin Mass was said universally, people understood a lot better than you might think.

The actions of the priest, including the ringing of the bells, let the faithful know exactly how the mass was progressing and what was happening. Remember, they were all cathechized in the protocols of the mass and the rubrics or rules that the priest and altar boys were supposed to follow made the non-verbal communication real clear to the people.

The sermons were delivered in the vernacular of course. But as I remember, that was the least intelligible part of the Latin mass to me back in the day, as I didn’t know Polish and that was the most verbal portion of the mass.

I dont understand the mass here at all, when its done in Tamil/Chinese or malay… Would love the latin mass… huhuhu

 

[Sonic]

So I was just curious about the Tridentine mass. It’s said in latin.

But not everyone knows latin; I mean I understand people like the tradition of the old latin mass; but isn’t the point of masses in local languages so people understand everyone that’s being said and can understand the service?

I mean no offense I went to a latin mass recently and I was totally lost. I mean it’s okay to go to latin masses and all; and it seems like a good tradition but what’s the point of a mass the for some who don’t understand latin?

I’m okay with keeping the Tridentine mass; but I think mass in local languages should be kept too.

Does anyone think the latin mass should be the only recognized mass? I think it would interesting if it was; but it’s not something I’d support.

Two excellent resources you may want to explore to help you better understand the Extraordinary Form of the Mass… and through it come to a better understanding of the Ordinary Form.

Traditional Latin Mass explained and narrated by Archbishop Fulton Sheen:

youtube.com/watch?v=R6AOvStZS64

Father Calvin Goodwin, Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP; fssp.org/ ), explains the Extraordinary Form of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

youtube.com/watch?v=3eb0R-edS3Y

 

[Usige]

Right. I was talking about the “Mass without Latin being an abuse” part. I am curious as to where this came from. I’m sure if there is a document that says this someone will post it.

I can’t say it’s ever specifically called an abuse, but it is a departure from what the Second Vatican Council seemed to intend. If you read the second section of article 36 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) where it talks about the use of the vernacular (aka mother tongue) over Latin, it says:

Sacrosanctum Concilium 36 § 2
But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to **some **of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters. (emphasis added)

Sacrosanctum Concilium goes on to say:

Sacrosanctum Concilium 54
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.
(emphasis added)

Reading that it is obvious that the Church Fathers intended there to be limits placed on the use of the vernacular tongues with a focus on essentially the readings and some common prayers. When taken with 36 § 1 about preserving Latin and the fact that many, if not the majority, of OF masses have zero Latin in them I can see why many can see that as an abuse.

 

[thistle]

I spoke to my priest friend again (he is 75) about Veterum Sapientia and according to him it is still binding.
He says Latin cannot be used in many subjects being taught but it is important for Theology and Scholastic-Thomistic-Aristotelian philosophy.
In his opinion there are two possible reasons for Latin not being taught in many seminaries (he has travelled to many countries and he told me its pretty widespread that Latin is not being taught).

• There simply aren’t enough professors who speak and can teach Latin.
• Professors in seminaries do not think it is useful.

What I don’t understand is that this must be known to Rome so if the teaching of Latin is binding in seminaries why isn’t something done about it.

 

[ProVobis]

I spoke to my priest friend again (he is 75) about Veterum Sapientia and according to him it is still binding.
He says Latin cannot be used in many subjects being taught but it is important for Theology and Scholastic-Thomistic-Aristotelian philosophy.
In his opinion there are two possible reasons for Latin not being taught in many seminaries (he has travelled to many countries and he told me its pretty widespread that Latin is not being taught).

• There simply aren’t enough professors who speak and can teach Latin.
• Professors in seminaries do not think it is useful.

What I don’t understand is that this must be known to Rome so if the teaching of Latin is binding in seminaries why isn’t something done about it.

Though I don’t think you need to be able to converse in the language, I would think it’s important to be able to decipher Latin for Theology. Mutable, modern tongues aren’t good enough as a basis. But that dictates you need to have more than just one or two years of Latin. Probably Greek too. Surprisingly there are some Protestant ministers who are proficient in Latin and use it well in their sermons in explaining the gospels. And to some degree lawyers and botanists can be good teachers as well, lawyers especially since they learn Roman law and principles as well. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to employ some of these in seminaries, even if they don’t know theology. There aren’t that many differences between Classical Latin (codified by Cicero et al) and Ecclesiastical Latin. The Vatican has tried to encourage the study of Latin. It is up to the bishops to encourage it as well, even if they oppose the EF.