Latin, Unifying, or Devisive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter agr4028
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are missals that have both the Latin and English.
Click to expand...
The Prayers of the Mass are meant to be heard and read…not everyone has the ability to read…or read well, or read rapidly enough so that the prayers of the mass, if read, become THEIR prayer. Sorry this “there are Latin and English missals” doesn’t really work for me…I want to participate in the prayers of the mass, not read them.

The unity of the Eucharist comes from the fact that it is the same action, and that it is the ONE sacrafice of Christ made present for all…the language is INCIDENTAL…by the way, the first mass was NOT in Latin kids.
 
Yerusalyim said:
The Prayers of the Mass are meant to be heard and read…not everyone has the ability to read…or read well, or read rapidly enough so that the prayers of the mass, if read, become THEIR prayer.
Click to expand...
Then what did Mass attendees do for centuries before the printing press and while the Canon was said quietly?

As I’ve said before, we are lucky to have something to read. Those that choose not to learn do so at their own pleasure. I’ve tutored enough kids to know when you shouldn’t force them out of their comfort zones. That’s why I feel the Mass should have both Latin and vernacular. The handmissal and the spoken word works for me.
 
Yerusalyim said:
The Prayers of the Mass are meant to be heard and read…not everyone has the ability to read…or read well, or read rapidly enough so that the prayers of the mass, if read, become THEIR prayer. Sorry this “there are Latin and English missals” doesn’t really work for me…I want to participate in the prayers of the mass, not read them.

The unity of the Eucharist comes from the fact that it is the same action, and that it is the ONE sacrafice of Christ made present for all…the language is INCIDENTAL…by the way, the first mass was NOT in Latin kids.
Click to expand...
The Church managed just fine for hundreds of years, many of the people being illiterate. Try another argument. This Mass fed the Saints, and they had nothing but the best to say of it.
 
latinmasslover said:
The Church managed just fine for hundreds of years, many of the people being illiterate. Try another argument. This Mass fed the Saints, and they had nothing but the best to say of it.
Click to expand...
mmmmmmmm…this is getting interesting…so all those centuries that Mass was said in Latin was for the benefit of those who were illiterate?

as in, two negatives make a positive? :eek:
 
agr4028 said:
mmmmmmmm…this is getting interesting…so all those centuries that Mass was said in Latin was for the benefit of those who were illiterate?

as in, two negatives make a positive? :eek:
Click to expand...
I’ve heard a lot about Latin being a unifying force in the Church. It’s true that the Church needs Latin because the the English translations are so watered down and for official documents. However, when we speak of the Church, not all members of the Church have a Latin tradition. My wife was raised a Byzantine Catholic. Good, strong, faithful Catholics who are loyal to the pope and adhere to their traditions. However, she has no sense of the tradition of Latin because they use old Slavonic and always have. There have been saints (the names escape me now) who argued for mass in the vernacular 1,000 years ago!

When it’s all said and done though, I’ll go with what the pope decides.
 
Yerusalyim said:
The Prayers of the Mass are meant to be heard and read…not everyone has the ability to read…or read well, or read rapidly enough so that the prayers of the mass, if read, become THEIR prayer. Sorry this “there are Latin and English missals” doesn’t really work for me…I want to participate in the prayers of the mass, not read them.

The unity of the Eucharist comes from the fact that it is the same action, and that it is the ONE sacrafice of Christ made present for all…the language is INCIDENTAL…by the way, the first mass was NOT in Latin kids.
Click to expand...
Well, it all depends on one’s priorities.

The Mass is a Sacrifice. Everyone agrees on that.

Transubstantiation is achieved in both forms. We can agree on that.

Now, we have a choice, God Bless Benedict XVI.

What matters most to us in making that choice ? Reverence ? Degree of participation by the laity ?

How important is it to us that we interact with the celebrant ? How important is it that we have our own audible prayers in the mix ?

If our degree of participation and interaction with the celebrant is an important consideration, and is seen as a better way, then we really have to ask who it’s better for ?

Better for us ? Is a Mass that is easier to pray, due to all prayers being in the venacular, our priority ? Can we be ok with this and have a reverent Mass ? Of course.

But since the Mass itself is a sacrifice, why must we insist on what is easier for us ? Why must our needs be met ? Does it make the Mass more reverent ? If the Novus Ordo is not more reverent than the 1962 Mass, what is really accomplished ?

The Novus Ordo was introduced in Latin and with gregorian chant. Where do we find this Mass ? They are out there, but finding one isn’t easy.

If the Novus Ordo of today isn’t more reverent than the 1970 NO, and the 1970 NO isn’t more reverent than the 1962 mass, then what really has been accomplished ? Anything at all that outweighs the liturgical abuse and the division that it has enabled ?

Is there any reason the NO is to be preferred, other than what’s easier for Us ?
 
Scott_D said:
I’ve heard a lot about Latin being a unifying force in the Church. It’s true that the Church needs Latin because the the English translations are so watered down and for official documents. However, when we speak of the Church, not all members of the Church have a Latin tradition. My wife was raised a Byzantine Catholic. Good, strong, faithful Catholics who are loyal to the pope and adhere to their traditions. However, she has no sense of the tradition of Latin because they use old Slavonic and always have. There have been saints (the names escape me now) who argued for mass in the vernacular 1,000 years ago!

When it’s all said and done though, I’ll go with what the pope decides.
Click to expand...
The privilige of having a mass in vernacular i.e. old Slavonic was permitted for centuries along the coast of Dalamtia, Croatia… the country is just across the eastern part of the Italian sea coast The mass has always been of Latin Rite.
God bless
 
ProVobis said:
Or maybe understood the Mass better than we do today?
Click to expand...
Right.

The naysayers can’t seem to grasp the fact that someone can actually fully understand the Mass in Latin. Like, if a 12 year old asked an adult what was going on in the Mass, the adult wouldn’t have an answer.

Today, the majority of Catholics want a user friendly Liturgy. They want it to be easy to be a Catholic.

Me Me Me.

It’s sad.
 
agr4028 said:
mmmmmmmm…this is getting interesting…so all those centuries that Mass was said in Latin was for the benefit of those who were illiterate?

as in, two negatives make a positive? :eek:
Click to expand...
When one understands the Mass, there’s no need to read it line for line. People today are just lazy, like others have said here, they make the Mass about ME, ME, ME. It’s about God and worship due to Him.

Getting rid of the Latin was an abuse of the Second Vatican Council, endorsed by priests who were either:

ignorant slap on the wrist or
lazy two slaps on the wrist

This is the generation of Ease, and this pagan mentality has gotten into the Church. Read what the Saints and Popes have to say about Latin, not the opinions of Catholics who will never be satisfied until the Pope permits us to fulfill our Sunday obligation by *thinking *about Mass.
 
I don’t see any problem in having both vernacular and Latin Mass, the Mass is all about Jesus and I think we should concentrate on that.The Latin Mass and gregorian chants are something amazing and we should keep it. It is a special spiritual experience. When I attended the Mass held by John Paul II, there were people from all around the world, all nations. Everybody was given a booklet of liturgical readings and songs in italian and Latin(also transalted in other languages).We were singing gregorian chants during the Mass and for the first time in my life( I’m craddle catholic) I felt the unifying power of Eucharistic celebration, I also felt, if I can say so, the universality of the Catholic Church.
God bless
 
ProVobis said:
Or maybe understood the Mass better than we do today?
Click to expand...
I’ll never buy that a Mass form that folks just showed up to, and did other stuff while Mass was being said, is so much better and so better understood than it is now.

Perhaps Latin Mass was the original definition of “multi-tasking”

:cool:
 
manjiga said:
The privilige of having a mass in vernacular i.e. old Slavonic was permitted for centuries along the coast of Dalamtia, Croatia… the country is just across the eastern part of the Italian sea coast The mass has always been of Latin Rite.
God bless
Click to expand...
Actually, my wife has no ties to Croatia or Dalmatia. Half of her family is Ruthenian, and the other half is Hungarian. There is no tradition of Latin at all among the Byzantines there either.
 
Scott_D said:
Actually, my wife has no ties to Croatia or Dalmatia. Half of her family is Ruthenian, and the other half is Hungarian. There is no tradition of Latin at all among the Byzantines there either.
Click to expand...
Dalmatia had both traditions: vernacular and Latin ( the languages used in the rite). The rite itself has always been Latin Rite, never Byzantine Rite. The use of vernacular in the latin rite is just a proof of how the Catholic Church has always had an open heart to the needs of her people. Nowdays these chants in vernacular are just a part of celebrating big events throughout the liturgical year, especially during Lent. There are places where these customs are been preserved. Now they are more part of tourist attraction. There have been some attempts to restore the whole Mass in old vernacular, and there are some priests that want to include gregorian singing (in latin) during the Mass…I’m looking forward to these changes. I hope I was able to explain myself, since I’m not native speaker of english:blush:
God bless
 
The Church of the West for the last 2000 years has seen Latin as a unifying element - and I don’t give a hoot in *ell for anyone who sees it as divisive - that notion is a foreign as protestantism, and should be shrugged off as such.

The vernacular may be licit, but Latin is the language of our rite and our heritage. An attack on Latin is an attack on our liturgical heritage, and should be seen as nothing less then an assault upon our rite.
 
Jesus of Nazareth: Unifying or Devisive?

Can’t we all see that this question about Latin does not have an answer? By fidelity to God, any good thing might unite us more closely to God and to one another. There is no good thing, though–not even faith in our Redeemer and Lord!–which the evil one will not try to twist in his favor to divide us. Even our faith in Jesus may be used against us by our enemy. Does that not give us pause?

As Steven Covey keeps pointing out, the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. Latin should be just one more thing we can be charitable to each other about, and that goes both ways. Those who cannot approach Latin in that way should ask for the grace to leave the question to the debate of cooler heads and larger hearts, and that goes both ways, too.

IMHO, of course. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top