Latin Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dove51
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brennan_Doherty said:
I agree that it would be the few rather than the many who would learn Latin well enough to understand it without translating it to English. And we both agree (and recent Popes concur) that seminarians and Priests should learn Latin. Nevertheless, part of the reason seminarians have not been is that their instructors know they probably will never have to use it since it (for the most part) has been dropped from the liturgy.

And yes, I do think the English translations of the TLM are good. In fact, due to the changes in the liturgy, I would take a TLM in the vernacular over the NO in Latin any day. However, part of the reason I think the TLM translations are good is that they are translations of a liturgy that will be celebrated in Latin and thus have the Latin texts right across from them. I think it is much more difficult to mistranslate or give an impoverished translation when practically speaking many people will be able to do a side by side comparison and one doesn’t necessarily have to be an expert in Latin to discover a poor or inaccurate translation.

And I would say it is due to the unchangeable nature of a “dead” or sacred language (whether it be Latin or ancient Greek or old Russian) which helps provide a refuge and a strength for people. It does not help people’s sense of trust when there are wars over differing views of how the Latin should be translated and one can’t necessarily trust that the translation they are reading is as accurate as it can be.

I am glad we have the Bible in the vernacular, but again, most of the Mass is unchanging (and not as long) so it’s not like one would have to learn nearly as much Latin as one would have to learn Hebrew or Greek to read the Bible in the original languages.

Since Latin became the language of the Church I do have a trust that whatever was originally in the Greek has been fairly accurately conveyed to the Latin and of course I’m sure parts of the liturgy were originally done in the Latin itself. All part of organic devlopment.
Click to expand...
As the use of the vernacular could be seen to be?😃
 
JKirkLVNV said:
As the use of the vernacular could be seen to be?😃
Click to expand...
Hmm…

Actually part of the reason I quoted from Fr. Parson’s article above is what it said not only about the Latin rite but pretty much any rite whether it is Orthodox or Armenian etc. He indicates that once a liturgy was in a “set-apart” or sacred language it stayed that way. And this was whether or not this language became “dead” or was being introduced to a country who never had that language as a vernacular language.

Thus purposely putting the liturgy in the vernacular does not seem to be something that has been done (except perhaps in rare instances which I am not aware of) in any rite of any ancient Church. Thus doing it in the 1960’s when it had not been done in the previous history of the Church indicates that it is not an organic development but an innovation.
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
Hmm…

Actually part of the reason I quoted from Fr. Parson’s article above is what it said not only about the Latin rite but pretty much any rite whether it is Orthodox or Armenian etc. He indicates that once a liturgy was in a “set-apart” or sacred language it stayed that way. And this was whether or not this language became “dead” or was being introduced to a country who never had that language as a vernacular language.

Thus purposely putting the liturgy in the vernacular does not seem to be something that has been done (except perhaps in rare instances which I am not aware of) in any rite of any ancient Church. Thus doing it in the 1960’s when it had not been done in the previous history of the Church indicates that it is not an organic development but an innovation.
Click to expand...
But that isn’t the case. At the time of Cyril and Methodius, what has become Old Church Slavonic was a living language and the Mass was permitted IN that langauge (this was when the argument that Hebrew, Latin, and Greek were the only worthy languages to use in the liturgies because they were the only ones that Pilate used on the signboard of Christ’s Cross. The idea was condemned). AND the switch from the original Greek was not a switch from one sacred language to another. It was a switch to a vernacular, done so more people (generally) could understand it. The idea of translating for everyone didn’t really come up, did it, until communication became easier and easier?

There’s nothing inherently wrong with being able to understand the liturgy in the language in which you think or reason, nor is there anything inherently sacred in any particular language (save perhaps the language that God and the Angels and Saints use in Their discourse One with Another and we’ve no idea what that is, though, please God, someday we’ll learn). You can argue the aesthetics, certainly, but I would counter that we can achieve the same by avoiding street English, for example. I’ve always known what “thee” and “thy” and “thine” meant, for example, and to Whom they were directed. I didn’t have to take a class (I did have to look up “vouchsafe,” however).
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Let me ask you something. I’m an orthodox Catholic. There isn’t a teaching of the Church in which I do not believe. I converted as an adult, so I made a choice, ie, this isn’t simply the religion of my people in which I remain out of laziness, etc. I’ve learned about the Tridentine Mass and I’ve attended the Tridentine Mass. It leaves me cold. I don’t care to attend it, though I’m happy that others have the freedom to do so. What if, having learned about the Tridentine Mass, I and others don’t particularly love it? Keep in mind that we don’t hate it. We simply prefer the Mass in our own langauge. So is there something wrong with me (and the many others who feel the same way)? Are we bad Catholics, heretics, schismatics, etc?
Click to expand...
I second the poster who flatly denied that those who prefer the Novus Ordo are somehow “bad” or “heretical” or “schismatic” Catholics. I wouldn’t say that anyone, solely on the basis of preferring the Novus Ordo, is defective in their belief and practice of the Catholic faith. Let me repeat- I do not think less of you and others who prefer the Novus Ordo. I won’t lie and say I never wonder about this attitude, but I recognize that I don’t have the authority to make such judgements about others.

Again, the reason so many of us prefer the Old Latin Mass is not primarily because of the ancient and foreign language in which it is celebrated. Our preference for it is due to (and I’m sure you’re familiar with this) the Old Mass’ s abundance of prayers-particularly those of the Offertory and after the Consecration, and many are some of the most beautiful psalms of the Old Testament-which drive home the sacrificial nature of the Mass and ground us in our dependency toward God.

As you know, many of these are not found in the Novus Ordo. I suppose we could debate whether they are critical to a proper celebration of the Eucharist. However, the fact remains-for those of us who are drawn to the extraordinary form, it is because it bolsters our faith and spirituality, particularly in the right prayer intentions for Mass, far more than the ordinary form does.
 
CollegeKid said:
I second the poster who flatly denied that those who prefer the Novus Ordo are somehow “bad” or “heretical” or “schismatic” Catholics. I wouldn’t say that anyone, solely on the basis of preferring the Novus Ordo, is defective in their belief and practice of the Catholic faith. Let me repeat- I do not think less of you and others who prefer the Novus Ordo. I won’t lie and say I never wonder about this attitude, but I recognize that I don’t have the authority to make such judgements about others.

Again, the reason so many of us prefer the Old Latin Mass is not primarily because of the ancient and foreign language in which it is celebrated. Our preference for it is due to (and I’m sure you’re familiar with this) the Old Mass’ s abundance of prayers-particularly those of the Offertory and after the Consecration, and many are some of the most beautiful psalms of the Old Testament-which drive home the sacrificial nature of the Mass and ground us in our dependency toward God.

As you know, many of these are not found in the Novus Ordo. I suppose we could debate whether they are critical to a proper celebration of the Eucharist. However, the fact remains-for those of us who are drawn to the extraordinary form, it is because it bolsters our faith and spirituality, particularly in the right prayer intentions for Mass, far more than the ordinary form does.
Click to expand...
I am glad to hear this. I wish more of your confreres shared your views. And if the TLM were in the vernacular, I’d go. The English translations of it that I’ve read are beautiful. Until then, I don’t see why I would want to trade the Mass I attend (in my language, audibly offered, and generally very reverent) for the TLM. But I wouldn’t deny anyone else the opportunity.
 
Wow, so many opinions! Sorry I couldn’t get back to check on this post for so long. I’m really grateful for everyone who took the time to share their knowledge with me. I’d never heard of Mass this way until a few weeks ago. (:eek:) That’s how ignorant I was–and still am, sadly.

There seems to be so much to learn! Thanks to those who posted references for me to check out. I’m currently watching a video of the TLM on YouTube. It’s very pretty. I wonder if I’ll be able to find a church near me who does this. I think it would be a sight to behold indeed.

God bless you all for taking the time to share these things with me!
 
dove51 said:
Wow, so many opinions!
Click to expand...
Isn’t that the truth!

😃
Sorry I couldn’t get back to check on this post for so long. I’m really grateful for everyone who took the time to share their knowledge with me. I’d never heard of Mass this way until a few weeks ago. (:eek:) That’s how ignorant I was–and still am, sadly.
Click to expand...
There seems to be so much to learn! Thanks to those who posted references for me to check out. I’m currently watching a video of the TLM on YouTube. It’s very pretty. I wonder if I’ll be able to find a church near me who does this. I think it would be a sight to behold indeed.
Click to expand...
👍

Do you have something that you can use to follow what the priest is saying?
 
AJV said:
Do you have something that you can use to follow what the priest is saying?
Click to expand...
I’m doing a little Googling and, unfortunately, it looks like I probably won’t be able to get to a church that has one. I might make a trip to the church closest to me to see it, though. When I do, I think I’ll buy a copy of a missal (I think that’s what they’re called?) so I can try and follow along.

But at this point, I think I’ll stick with going to the newer Mass, at least until I’m confirmed. I’m so new I don’t even remember the creeds or prayers anymore, let alone how the N.O. works in its entirety. I just re-learned the Hail Mary last week. Agh, this is so embarrassing! 😊

Thank you so much for your concern, it’s really touching!
 
JKirkLVNV said:
But that isn’t the case. At the time of Cyril and Methodius, what has become Old Church Slavonic was a living language and the Mass was permitted IN that langauge (this was when the argument that Hebrew, Latin, and Greek were the only worthy languages to use in the liturgies because they were the only ones that Pilate used on the signboard of Christ’s Cross. The idea was condemned). AND the switch from the original Greek was not a switch from one sacred language to another. It was a switch to a vernacular, done so more people (generally) could understand it. The idea of translating for everyone didn’t really come up, did it, until communication became easier and easier?

There’s nothing inherently wrong with being able to understand the liturgy in the language in which you think or reason, nor is there anything inherently sacred in any particular language (save perhaps the language that God and the Angels and Saints use in Their discourse One with Another and we’ve no idea what that is, though, please God, someday we’ll learn). You can argue the aesthetics, certainly, but I would counter that we can achieve the same by avoiding street English, for example. I’ve always known what “thee” and “thy” and “thine” meant, for example, and to Whom they were directed. I didn’t have to take a class (I did have to look up “vouchsafe,” however).
Click to expand...
Well, after Old Church Slavonic ceased to be a living language I’m betting the liturgy wasn’t switched to “new” Slavonic in order to keep it in the vernacular. And probably the liturgy did move to Latin as that was (I assume) a more universal language and became the language of theology as well. Yet once it was established as the language of the liturgy the language wasn’t switched to the vernacular when Catholicism spread to other countries.
 
Let’s not forget that Latin is still the official language of the Church…and probably always will be.

I like the Latin because it ensures that the Mass is truly universal. For the most part, Latin is a dead language and this means that the meaning of words don’t change; this means that the meaning of things said in the Tridentine Mass will never be obscured due to a change in the meaning of the particular words used.

In my opinion, the use of Latin in the Mass is great because it puts the worshippers into contact with all of the Saints from thousands of years ago. They all worshipped using this language aswell.

Latin has been a dead language for hundreds of years and the Church has never saw fit to change her language to a modern one. There must be a valid reason for this.
 
LilyM said:
And that’s why for 300 YEARS after Christ’s death the liturgy was actually in Greek, not Latin. The change to Latin didn’t happen until around the time Christianity became tolerated rather than persecuted in the Roman Empire.

Latin wasn’t used by anyone intimately associated with Christ’s life and death except Pilate who condemned him. Even the crowd baying for his blood would’ve been speaking Aramaic, being Jews.
Click to expand...
Great then, lets use Greek, I don’t have a real problem with that either. The Kyrie, which is seldom used anywhere except in the TLM is Greek.

So lets see if I have this right. Greek used for 300 years, Latin for over 1600 years and the vernacular for 45 years.:hmmm:

I say that Latin wins just on longevity alone but then again:

I am just an old altar boy, nothing more and nothing less.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
And if we could be satisfied with that, that would be ideal. But that won’t satisfy some people, they won’t be happy until there are no vernacular masses. That’s the reason some people are leery of the Tridentine: those who advocate for it won’t rest until it’s all their way. But your post heartens me. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Yup. Those people ARE out there (I don’t personally know any, but I read the traditionalist press). If you ask me, this attitude is what spoils the milk on the whole TLM quesiton. If I were a Pastor, I would be VERY careful of how I administered the TLM in my parish, and I would NOT go looking for it.

BTW: my DH is spearheading an effort through his K of C Council to have the TLM at our parish.

The thing I am concerned about is that people will SAY they’re willing to support it but show up once and then vanish.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
And if we could be satisfied with that, that would be ideal. But that won’t satisfy some people, they won’t be happy until there are no vernacular masses. That’s the reason some people are leery of the Tridentine: those who advocate for it won’t rest until it’s all their way. But your post heartens me. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Equally there are still those who won’t be happy until there are no Traditional Masses either. They won’t rest until the Traditional Mass fades into obscurity. Actually, I suspect there is some reason that it has survived in spite of all that has happened to destroy it, and I do believe that is by the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit. No matter how much those in control ridiculed it and those who clung to it, no matter how much or how often they tried to stop it, tried to supress it and tried to banish it, it survived. Think about it.

Those leery of the Traditional Mass have no need to be. They have everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose.
 
And if we could be satisfied with that, that would be ideal. But that won’t satisfy some people, they won’t be happy until there are no vernacular masses.
Click to expand...
Well, since the Council of Trent prohibited Mass in the vernacular only and Vatican II voted overwhemingly to keep Latin in the liturgy, I guess maybe there is some justification for these “people” to try to get rid of all-vernacular masses?

Other than taking a little more effort to learn a little Latin, why such opposition to it? Does the world have to have everything in English?
 
JKirkLVNV said:
And if we could be satisfied with that, that would be ideal. But that won’t satisfy some people, they won’t be happy until there are no vernacular masses. That’s the reason some people are leery of the Tridentine: those who advocate for it won’t rest until it’s all their way. But your post heartens me. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Technically the Latin Mass (Tridentine) is in the Vernacular since it matters on which Language your cerebrum utilizes. For example, one may read Latin but must be translated in the brain to the language you think with. Some can think in multiple languages, all the better. Let us not forget, that the vernacular is on the opposing pages (to Latin pages) of Traditional Missals.😉
It is not of question of not being happy until there are no vernacular masses, it is more of what is valid and correspondingly licit that is of importance.
 
BobP123 said:
Well, since the Council of Trent prohibited Mass in the vernacular only and Vatican II voted overwhemingly to keep Latin in the liturgy, I guess maybe there is some justification for these “people” to try to get rid of all-vernacular masses?

Other than taking a little more effort to learn a little Latin, why such opposition to it? Does the world have to have everything in English?
Click to expand...
The Anti-TLM crowd has a lot more against it than Latin (although that is ALWAYS part of the equation). Many HATE (I us that word after careful deliberation) having the priest facing ad orientem, and the whispered canon drives 'em nuts (actually, that bugs me, too). They don’t like the ‘boys only’ policy for servers. And what, o WHAT is a Mass without guitars and tambourines? Male chauvinist, elitist, Eurocentric, falderal! Right? :rolleyes:
 
mercygate said:
Yup. Those people ARE out there (I don’t personally know any, but I read the traditionalist press). If you ask me, this attitude is what spoils the milk on the whole TLM quesiton. If I were a Pastor, I would be VERY careful of how I administered the TLM in my parish, and I would NOT go looking for it.

BTW: my DH is spearheading an effort through his K of C Council to have the TLM at our parish.

The thing I am concerned about is that people will SAY they’re willing to support it but show up once and then vanish.
Click to expand...
Well, as far as I know there have been no recorded vanishings at any Traditional Masses since its inception. You may of course correct me if I am wrong.

(I am a big Star Trek fan and I do like it when they beam up and down to places via the de-molecularization and re-molecularization of the body)🙂
 
ThereCanBeOnly1 said:
Well, as far as I know there have been no recorded vanishings at any Traditional Masses since its inception. You may of course correct me if I am wrong.

(I am a big Star Trek fan and I do like it when they beam up and down to places via the de-molecularization and re-molecularization of the body)🙂
Click to expand...
:tiphat:
Good one! Thanks for the chuckle!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top