Latin, Unifying, or Devisive?

[agr4028]

Many posters in the Traditional Catholicism forum claim that Mass in Latin would unify the Church. (assuming that the Church lacks unity to begin with).

Yet to read these forums, Latin is probably the most divisive issue, outside of Vatican II itself, to be found at CAF.

 

[dandn5000]

Certainly a thought.

If you ask me about the whole vernacular/Latin debate, I think that we should have both. Some people have their faith deepened through the feeling that they’re connected in no uncertain terms with something that their ancestors generations before them also had in a similar fashion, while others have their faith deepened by being able to hear the Word of God in no uncertain terms, both in the tangible Word and in spirit. One isn’t necessarily more important than the other, and both certainly should have their place. This is where so many people degenerate into a debate - they are stuck in the thought that their preference is what is correct and is what other people should be doing, but mileage varies from person to person. Its like with raising kids - what works great with one will work disastrously with the next. Its the same with which form of the Mass to use - some work better using the vernacular and having things in more certain and understandable terms, while others are more edified with the comparative concreteness and reverence of the EF Mass.

 

[RobbyS]

Certainly a thought.

If you ask me about the whole vernacular/Latin debate, I think that we should have both. Some people have their faith deepened through the feeling that they’re connected in no uncertain terms with something that their ancestors generations before them also had in a similar fashion, while others have their faith deepened by being able to hear the Word of God in no uncertain terms, both in the tangible Word and in spirit. One isn’t necessarily more important than the other, and both certainly should have their place. This is where so many people degenerate into a debate - they are stuck in the thought that their preference is what is correct and is what other people should be doing, but mileage varies from person to person. Its like with raising kids - what works great with one will work disastrously with the next. Its the same with which form of the Mass to use - some work better using the vernacular and having things in more certain and understandable terms, while others are more edified with the comparative concreteness and reverence of the EF Mass.

What we have is confusion. I blame it on the liturgical reformers who simply threw out the Latin mass with no regard to the feelings of the laity: top-down reformers with little respect for the lowly pew sitter who was perfectly content with the Latin mass. Reasonably, the reforms should have been phased in over a persion of ten or fiteen years. Instead, they came like BAM! As I have subsequently discovered, the problem came because the the liturgical movement which finally produced the new mass was more than a generation old, and some of the reformers were eager to strike while the iron was hot. They were in no mood to compromise with their opponents.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Many posters in the Traditional Catholicism forum claim that Mass in Latin would unify the Church. (assuming that the Church lacks unity to begin with).

Yet to read these forums, Latin is probably the most divisive issue, outside of Vatican II itself, to be found at CAF.

So are you saying we should get rid of Vatican II as well?

That’s not being obedient to the Holy Father.

 

[ProVobis]

Certainly a thought.

If you ask me about the whole vernacular/Latin debate,** I think that we should have both.** Some people have their faith deepened through the feeling that they’re connected in no uncertain terms with something that their ancestors generations before them also had in a similar fashion, while others have their faith deepened by being able to hear the Word of God in no uncertain terms, both in the tangible Word and in spirit. One isn’t necessarily more important than the other, and both certainly should have their place. This is where so many people degenerate into a debate - they are stuck in the thought that their preference is what is correct and is what other people should be doing, but mileage varies from person to person. Its like with raising kids - what works great with one will work disastrously with the next. Its the same with which form of the Mass to use - some work better using the vernacular and having things in more certain and understandable terms, while others are more edified with the comparative concreteness and reverence of the EF Mass.

The readings have a much deeper meaning when you read or hear them in both. Or at least they should have, except to the most stubborn.

 

[Genesis315]

Generally, it makes sense to me that a common language of worship would be a uniting element. People often bring up parishes having Masses for different language groups instead of everybody being able to worship together.

However, even when the Mass was in Latin, there was ethnic division. For example, in my town there are four churches in walking distance from each other built in the late 19th and early 20th century–one was the Italian church, one was the Polish church, one was the Irish church, and one was the French church. In the town I work, there are churches even closer (built in the same period)–one Irish, one Polish, one Italian, and one German.

So to me theoretically the idea of Latin being unifying makes sense, but I’m not sure how much that actually was the case in practice (especially when you take into account all the cultural differences besides language that cause people to congregate with those with the same cultural background–if language were the only difference having one language for Mass might have made more of an impact).

 

[universalindult]

Latin, Unifying, or Devisive ?

Jesus Christ: Unifying, or Devisive?

 

[Yerusalyim]

So to me theoretically the idea of Latin being unifying makes sense

It would be unifying if everyone understood Latin…we don’t.

 

[LRThunder]

It would be unifying if everyone understood Latin…we don’t.

Sigh.

There are missals that have both the Latin and English.

 

[tee_eff_em]

It would be unifying if everyone understood Latin…we don’t.

It is unifying in that it puts everyone on an equal footing of misunderstanding – Happy now?

tee

 

[agr4028]

So are you saying we should get rid of Vatican II as well?

That’s not being obedient to the Holy Father.

Never said that at all. I see lots of carping that Vatican II has done horrible things to the Church. Aside from V2 gripes, the “Latin” issue seems to be the next biggie. That was the crux of my question.

Also, my belated apologies for mis-spelling "divisive’ in the thread title.

 

[latinmasslover]

Never said that at all. I see lots of carping that Vatican II has done horrible things to the Church. Aside from V2 gripes, the “Latin” issue seems to be the next biggie. That was the crux of my question.

Also, my belated apologies for mis-spelling "divisive’ in the thread title.

The people abusing and misinterpreting the intentions of Vatican II are the same ones griping about Latin, and they’re dividing the Church on this issue. Vatican II did not do away with Vatican II, and the New Rite was not supposed to be all vernacular.

Latin doesn’t create problems, it’s people who want their own way. Peace.

 

[I_Believe]

There was division before the Council.

**According to an account of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, a peritus to the Council and later secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship (1969-75), just before the Council there was considerable controversy over use of Latin. He describes a plenary meeting in April 1961, where the matter was discussed:

“For more than two hours on the appointed day, the periti, one from each country, pleaded - some of them in sorrowful tones, including Father Godfrey Diekmann, an American Benedictine, and Professor Frederick McManus of the Catholic University in Washington, D.C. - that the door be opened to the mother tongues. It was an evening of deep emotion; all were shaken, being deeply moved by what had been said and heard. The conclusion reached in this debate was ultimately set forth in Chapter I of the Constitution on the Liturgy, where the question is answered in a way that reconciles the rights of Latin and the need of the vernaculars in celebrations with the people”.**

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

So much for continuity.

 

[I_Believe]

The people abusing and misinterpreting the intentions of Vatican II are the same ones griping about Latin, and they’re dividing the Church on this issue. Vatican II did not do away with Vatican II, and the New Rite was not supposed to be all vernacular.

Latin doesn’t create problems, it’s people who want their own way. Peace.

You are correct. Bugnini wanted the new Mass to be in the venacular and Paul VI wisely said no.

As the last 40 years or so have shown, it’s not the traditionalists who have double standards and are being disobedient.

Revolutionary Changes are the problem, a fact denied by those who embrace such. Division must be enabled in order to become manifest.

I’ll add that John XXIII tried to stop it before it started with his Veterum Sapientia. JMO.

 

[agr4028]

I’ll add that John XXIII tried to stop it before it started with his Veterum Sapientia. JMO.

And, kudos to you for saying that it is your opinion, as opposed to saying that such things are Church teaching (as many do).

 

[I_Believe]

And, kudos to you for saying that it is your opinion, as opposed to saying that such things are Church teaching (as many do).

lol, well we all are armchair Theologians and Cannon lawyers aren’t we ?

VS was a decree and command. It’s right there in his Holiness’s words. But my opinion of it, is that it was a warning of sorts to the Council.

I could be wrong.

 

[bear06]

Many posters in the Traditional Catholicism forum claim that Mass in Latin would unify the Church. (assuming that the Church lacks unity to begin with).

Yet to read these forums, Latin is probably the most divisive issue, outside of Vatican II itself, to be found at CAF.

Latin isn’t the issue. If it were why would we be saying that Spanish, Vietnamese, Tagalog were divisive? It’s a language. If people thought about it, the use of Latin would end racial divides in our Church. We could all worship together if we were united in the use of same language. We could go to any country and understand the Mass. BTW, I’m not a traditionalist but I attend a Mass in Latin.

 

[brockmac]

Latin in and of itself is not unifying or devisive. It is people who are devisive or unifying.

For some reason we seem to have two camps. One camp is very unhappy with VII and the Mass of Paul VI and view the changes in both as unnecessary at best and heretical at worst. The other camp embraces the changes of VII and the new order of the Mass.

My experience on these forums is that there is much more denigration of the OF of the Mass coming from the “traditionalists” then there is of the EF from the other camp.

Having been to both, although admittedly to the EF much, much more frequently, I will say that when done reverently and according to the rubrics, both are beautiful liturgies. And beyond that, both re-present the sacrafice of Calvary, as do the liturgies of our bretheren in the East.

Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have each addressed a moto propio letter to attempt to welcome back those Catholics who prefer the EF of the Mass. And while both of these letters have resulted in incrementally greater availability of the EF, I do not know how much fruit they have born in getting Catholics who follow schismatic “traditionalist” movements to come home. I can only pray that as more diocese and parishes offer this form for those who desire it, more and more people will come home.

It is even possible, though I doubt likely, that as the availability improves, more people will discover the older liturgy and learn to love it and chose it over the newer liturgy. I agree with our Holy Father, that these two forms of the liturgy can exist side by side and each Catholic can participate in which ever form he/she chooses.

 

[HelenRose]

Many posters in the Traditional Catholicism forum claim that Mass in Latin would unify the Church. (assuming that the Church lacks unity to begin with).

Yet to read these forums, Latin is probably the most divisive issue, outside of Vatican II itself, to be found at CAF.

I don’t understand why people wish to argue over this. We have both. There simply are people on both sides of the issue who wish to control others.

I am learning Latin songs and I love them. No one has forced this on me. I know myself well enough to know, that if someone had shoved a Latin page at me and said that I HAD to learn it, I would have shoved it right back into their face. As it is, my love for this endeavor has grown peacefully and lovingly.

 

[Ignatius]

Many posters in the Traditional Catholicism forum claim that Mass in Latin would unify the Church.

Yes, bringing disobedient bishops into conformit with the constant requests of the Holy See to make the Latin Mass easily available to those who desire it does bring unity and healing to the Church.