Latin vs vernacular mass

[Cristiano]

Excellent point, I had never looked up the Apostle’s Creed in Latin. Normally in my part of the world it is recited in French, but at the abbey where I normally go to Mass, they use the Nicene Creed (chanted!) in Latin.

So no theological games being played here. No mistranslation. Nothing to do with EF vs OF then.

You comment about the French translation is valid for the Italian translation too. When I was a kid I learned it in Italian and it always confused the heck out of me.

 

[ProVobis]

It should say “he descended into hell” because that is the true translation of “descendit ad inferos”.

I think we’re thinking inferno, but that’s not necessarily so here:

From Wikipedia:

The Greek wording in the Apostles’ Creed is κατελθόντα εἰς τὰ κατώτατα, (“katelthonta eis ta katôtata”), and in Latin descendit ad inferos. The Greek τὰ κατώτατα (“the lowest”) and the Latin inferos (“those below”) may also be translated as “underworld”, “netherworld”, or as “abode of the dead”. Thus, sometimes this phrase is translated as “descended to the dead.” The first use of the English harrowing in this context is in homilies of Aelfric, ca. 1000. Harrow is a by-form of harry, a military term meaning to “make predatory raids or incursions”[2]. The term Harrowing of Hell refers not merely to the idea that Christ descended into Hell, as in the Creed, but to the rich tradition that developed later, asserting that he triumphed over inferos, releasing Hell’s captives, particularly Adam and Eve, and the righteous men and women of Old Testament times.

 

[JRKH]

Hmmm… interesting. I see where the Times says the Holy Father wants both forms in every parish, but the cardinal is quoted saying less than that.

I also think the cardinal himself may be overstating things - just because Benedict is willing to offer the possibility of an EF mass, doesn’t mean that everybody will know it. For everybody to know it, Benedict would have to do more than be willing to offer the possibility, he would have to be determined to require it. So I suspect what Castrillon Hoyos meant was something slightly more general like “the Holy Father is willing to offer everybody the possibility of knowing the EF.” That at least seems more consistent with Summorum Pontificum and its cover letter, rather than that both forms will be imposed on every parish.

How do we go from, “The Pope wishes every parish to offer both rites for Sunday Mass…” as stated in the article, to, “both forms will be imposed on every parish”?

This is how barriers get set up between catholics. I choose to try and tear down barriers and not erect them.
Of course the Pope is not “forcing” anything on anyone, but the Vatican also wrote letters to the seminaries, “to ask that student priests be required to learn the rite”, which indicates that he wants to make sure that there aren’t any barriers to parishes offering both forms.

I have said repeatedly that the usage of the EF and OF will evolve naturally over time. Each will be mutually supporting. They should not be in competition with each other, and we should be willing to give both an equal chance. That is what The Holy Father is asking - and that is ALL he is asking.

Peace
James

 

[Digitonomy]

"JRKH:

This is how barriers get set up between catholics. I choose to try and tear down barriers and not erect them.

Sorry if I’m erecting barriers. My goal is to accurately interpret the truth based on the article and the words of the Holy Father, not to engineer the creation or destruction of barriers.

How do we go from, “The Pope wishes every parish to offer both rites for Sunday Mass…” as stated in the article, to, “both forms will be imposed on every parish”?

The pope wishes a lot of things, and to realize those wishes it is often necessary to impose rules - such as we saw in Summorum Pontificum. As much as you portray it as tearing down barriers, it is at the same time building a barrier, constraining the freedom of bishops to regulate celebration of the mass in the way they had previously. Such is the nature of rules, and particularly those of the Holy Father - his wish is often our command.

Getting back to the core quote on which you’re hanging your argument, we have it only on the authority of the Times reporter that this is the pope’s wish. Taken literally, it seems to be an irrational wish, as some parishes have difficulty celebrating even one mass on Sunday. Given that Benedict is eminently rational, and given the more modest goals written in his own words in SP, I tend to believe the Times has exaggerated the Holy Father’s wishes.

 

[malphono]

such as we saw in Summorum Pontificum. As much as you portray it as tearing down barriers, it is at the same time building a barrier, constraining the freedom of bishops to regulate celebration of the mass in the way they had previously.

As I see it, it does not “constrain the freedom of bishops” at all. The former “indult” is where that barrier was erected. What Summorum Pontifcum does is remove the barrier against the EF that was put in place as part of the former “indult” by restoring (and emphasizing) the fact that, in the Roman Rite, the EF may be be freely offered without jumping through the (sometimes insurmountable) hoops that had often been put in place on the local level.

 

[JRKH]

Sorry if I’m erecting barriers. My goal is to accurately interpret the truth based on the article and the words of the Holy Father, not to engineer the creation or destruction of barriers.

No Problem. I was jsut pointing it out because I have seen so many times how conversations can become confrontational instead of conciliatory by a change in terminology. That is why I try to be accurate in how I convey something and not introduce terminology that was not used in the original sources.
I find the best way to “accurately interpret” is to look at the language used and not to substitute my own. Of course I’m not perfect by a long shot - so please do “keep me honest”.

The pope wishes a lot of things, and to realize those wishes it is often necessary to impose rules - such as we saw in Summorum Pontificum. As much as you portray it as tearing down barriers, it is at the same time building a barrier, constraining the freedom of bishops to regulate celebration of the mass in the way they had previously. Such is the nature of rules, and particularly those of the Holy Father - his wish is often our command.

True - It is sometimes necessary to take “decisive” steps to implement something - even a good thing. It took a civil war and the “Emmancipation Proclamation” to end slavery in the United States, and when it was done, the planters of the south were contrained in their freedom to operate their plantations in the way they had previously.
(The above is a hyperbolic, extreme, and symbolic example of the principle. I am not intending to equate the Bishops with slave holders.)
Sometimes imposing a rule enhances freedom rather than restricts it.

Of course that is not what the Holy Father is doing. He is not imposing any rules. He is only granting freedoms. Freedoms for the Good of the faithful.

Getting back to the core quote on which you’re hanging your argument, we have it only on the authority of the Times reporter that this is the pope’s wish. Taken literally, it seems to be an irrational wish, as some parishes have difficulty celebrating even one mass on Sunday. Given that Benedict is eminently rational, and given the more modest goals written in his own words in SP, I tend to believe the Times has exaggerated the Holy Father’s wishes.

Perhaps. I did not look any further to see if there were any supporting or conflcting documents relating to this quote. But since I have heard no more on it, I am assuming that the Vatican did not have any problems with the report in the Times.
I believe the most significant part of the statement is that the Vatican has written to the seminaries requesting that ALL priests need to be trained in both forms - a logical and necessary step since both forms are valid. This will have the effect of making more priests familiar and comfortable with the EF and provide the increased “opportunities” that the Holy Father wishes to give.

Time will tell.

Peace
James

 

[Digitonomy]

It took a civil war and the “Emmancipation Proclamation” to end slavery in the United States, and when it was done, the planters of the south were contrained in their freedom to operate their plantations in the way they had previously.
(The above is a hyperbolic, extreme, and symbolic example of the principle. I am not intending to equate the Bishops with slave holders.)

You understand my point exactly. The freedom of both the slaveholders and the bishops was constrained by new rules. In the former, I think we’ll all agree that was a good thing. In the latter, I think prevailing opinion on this board, and I hope among Catholics generally, is that it is a good thing.

 

[Digitonomy]

As I see it, it does not “constrain the freedom of bishops” at all. The former “indult” is where that barrier was erected.

If I recall correctly, the indult included an exhortation, while the motu proprio imposes definitive rules: the bishops are no longer permitted to refuse requests to celebrate the EF. Ergo, the bishops had more freedom before than they do now.

 

[malphono]

If I recall correctly, the indult included an exhortation, while the motu proprio imposes definitive rules: the bishops are no longer permitted to refuse requests to celebrate the EF. Ergo, the bishops had more freedom before than they do now.

Yes, I know that: they had freedom to restrict, which meant that the EF had no freedom. Local Ordinaries now no longer (thankfully) have the freedom to restrict the EF. Which is as it should.

 

[Holly3278]

In the “Long ago times” you refer to, it was the “vernacular” that moved away from the “Latin” not the other way around. For most of the Christian history of western Europe and America, Latin was taught as a matter of course in every school, even secular ones, from at least “high school” on up. It is only more recently that Latin has been dropped from most curriculums.

Peace
James

No offense at all intended towards you James but aren’t you forgetting that for much of the Christian history of Europe and America, there was no such thing as “high school” or whatever the equivalent of “high school” was for the vast majority of people? Also, keep in mind that during the Dark and Middle Ages, school was something that only the rich attended.

 

[bilcro2]

As a 81 year old Catholic, the Latin mass is like going to the opera. While it’s beauty remains in a mystery all its own, with ritual and music which lifts you to a higher leavel of spirituality. The Mass in the vernacular (English for me) connects me to the Holy Sacrifice in a more intimate way. Yes I love the pagentry andf the Gregorian Chant. but I feel more like a spectator rather than a participant. The current music of the church is terrible, I admit. I am hopeful that at some time in the future we will re-introduce some of the wonderful music that was lost after Vatican II. One drawback of the Vernacular mass is it’s casaulness which may have contributed to the "dressed down"attire by the congregation. We should spend some time on “tightening up” the liturgy and regain the reverence we once had.With two “competing” liturgies in the mass, where are we going in the future: separate liturgies? Latin Catholics? English Catholics? ???

 

[OraLabora]

As a 81 year old Catholic, the Latin mass is like going to the opera. While it’s beauty remains in a mystery all its own, with ritual and music which lifts you to a higher leavel of spirituality. The Mass in the vernacular (English for me) connects me to the Holy Sacrifice in a more intimate way. Yes I love the pagentry andf the Gregorian Chant. but I feel more like a spectator rather than a participant. The current music of the church is terrible, I admit. I am hopeful that at some time in the future we will re-introduce some of the wonderful music that was lost after Vatican II. One drawback of the Vernacular mass is it’s casaulness which may have contributed to the "dressed down"attire by the congregation. We should spend some time on “tightening up” the liturgy and regain the reverence we once had.With two “competing” liturgies in the mass, where are we going in the future: separate liturgies? Latin Catholics? English Catholics? ???

Here’s a site showing an office of Vespers in English but with Gregorian motif. Those familiar with Gregorian Chant will recognize the melody for the hymn as the melody for the weekday hymns for Vespers of Week I and III.

westminsterabbey.ca/chants.html#top

Although it is Vespers, I have heard similar arrangements for the Introit etc. of Mass at a Cistercian abbey. Surely for Mass, we could do something similar with the rich treasury of official antiphons. Also regular use could be made of the Kyriale in Latin. With time it should be easy for everyone to grasp the Kyrie (well, Greek not Latin), Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus in Latin.

Because I agree with you 110% on the ****** music issue. My parishes are mostly in French where I live and believe me our situation is no better.

 

[ProVobis]

With two “competing” liturgies in the mass, where are we going in the future: separate liturgies? Latin Catholics? English Catholics? ???

Actually, it’s become more than that. If you check out some of the threads, you have Spanish (and other vernacular) Masses where English Masses used to be. A lot of bitterness there. Latin vs English may be the least of your problems.

 

[JRKH]

No offense at all intended towards you James but aren’t you forgetting that for much of the Christian history of Europe and America, there was no such thing as “high school” or whatever the equivalent of “high school” was for the vast majority of people? Also, keep in mind that during the Dark and Middle Ages, school was something that only the rich attended.

Yes. We can certainly agree that education has changed greatly over the centuries both in it’s structure and in it’s availablility.

Of course - That still does not mean that people were unable to follow the mass. Those who could go to school studied Latin as part of their curriculum. Those who did not would still learn - at least - the responses in that mass just from hearing them from the time they were little.
I was born Pre-Vat II and before I ever even went to School I knew that when the Priest said, “Secula Seculorum”, the response was, “Et cum spiritu tuo”, and the priest would respond, “Oremus” (not sure of all the spellings here but you get the idea).
I even suspect that by the time I was 5 yo I knew what these things meant, at least in a general sense. How?? I asked. Children do that you know…
Then when I was in the 4th grade, right before the change to english, I was trained as an altar boy. I learned all of the necessary prayers, responses etc. from a card that had the prayers in three columns. Latin - Phonetic - English. My mother worked with me (and my two older brothers before me) until I had every prayer memorized. In fact I can STILL recite a bit of the old “Confiteor Deo” from memory. All of this I learned without ever taking Latin in School.
Unfortunately for me they up and changed the mass to English on me before I ever served a single mass.

My point is that, regardless of position or education level, everyone knew at least as much as they needed to know of the Latin since they had been hearing it from little on, and those who wished to, or needed to, know the mass better could generally do so.

With today’s level of education, and computer learning capabilites etc, there is no reason why anyone could not learn what they need to know to follow along in the Latin Mass.
In fact it is the children (the little sponges) who will pick it up the quickest.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

As a 81 year old Catholic, the Latin mass is like going to the opera. While it’s beauty remains in a mystery all its own, with ritual and music which lifts you to a higher leavel of spirituality. The Mass in the vernacular (English for me) connects me to the Holy Sacrifice in a more intimate way. Yes I love the pagentry andf the Gregorian Chant. but I feel more like a spectator rather than a participant. The current music of the church is terrible, I admit. I am hopeful that at some time in the future we will re-introduce some of the wonderful music that was lost after Vatican II. One drawback of the Vernacular mass is it’s casaulness which may have contributed to the "dressed down"attire by the congregation. We should spend some time on “tightening up” the liturgy and regain the reverence we once had.With two “competing” liturgies in the mass, where are we going in the future: separate liturgies? Latin Catholics? English Catholics? ???

This is a real possibility so long as people keep trying to pit one against the other. Once the seminaries start turning out priests trained in the EF, and it is available (as requested) in more parishes, they won’t be looked upon as “competing”, but as complementary.

I also agree with much of the rest of your post and the Holy Father does too. There needs to be a reining in of the abuses, and a return to a more orthodox liturgy whether in English or Latin.

Peace
James

 

[NPC]

Here’s a site showing an office of Vespers in English but with Gregorian motif. Those familiar with Gregorian Chant will recognize the melody for the hymn as the melody for the weekday hymns for Vespers of Week I and III.

westminsterabbey.ca/chants.html#top

Although it is Vespers, I have heard similar arrangements for the Introit etc. of Mass at a Cistercian abbey. Surely for Mass, we could do something similar with the rich treasury of official antiphons. Also regular use could be made of the Kyriale in Latin. With time it should be easy for everyone to grasp the Kyrie (well, Greek not Latin), Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus in Latin.

Because I agree with you 110% on the ****** music issue. My parishes are mostly in French where I live and believe me our situation is no better.

In my view, for those whose Mass is celebrated in English, it will be in their best interests over the coming months/years to learn the Latin chants of the Mass. With the new translation of the Roman Missal due, possibly within the next year, many English Mass settings will be rendered defunct. At very least, Latin will be useful for covering that transition - whether or not parishes intend to use Latin in the longer term. This is one way in which I’ve sold Latin to my choir! The thing is that there are so many misconceptions about Latin chant - people think it is so difficult and that the traditional chant notation is off-putting. However, my choir are being pleasantly surprised - in fact, in many ways, it’s easier to read chant notation than modern notation.

I know that there have been books issued to help choirs sing the English Introit, Offertory, Communion, etc. to traditional Gregorian psalm tones…The thing is, sometimes the English simply does not fit even a simple tone - or else the English has to be altered so much to fit the music that its meaning is changed. As for English settings of Latin hymns - my opinion is that the Latin simply cannot be beaten: I know of many English settings of Adoro Te Devote - one of the simplest chants - sung to the traditional music, but the English never seems to fit with such ease as does the Latin.

As I see it, there’s no reason why the average parish choir cannot introduce Gregorian chant (in Latin) to the liturgy - whether it be the E.F. or O.F… There are so many great resources out there now.

 

[curlycool89]

In my view, for those whose Mass is celebrated in English, it will be in their best interests over the coming months/years to learn the Latin chants of the Mass. With the new translation of the Roman Missal due, possibly within the next year, many English Mass settings will be rendered defunct.

I’m not really sure I’m understanding why you’re saying this. Yes, the settings will have to change, but that’s not exactly rocket science. The words changed, so the settings will have to change. Maybe for the first little while some of the pieces will have to be spoken instead of sung (which is already the norm for many daily masses anyways).

Right now our parish actually has very accurate settings for the pieces. For example, our Sunday night mass has acoustic guitars, but the Gloria is exactly what it should be. Which would be unlike the more “conservative” parish I attended last year (lots of knelling, they had a deacon, lots of genuflecting) which was mostly piano based and once featured the absolute worst Gloria I’ve ever heard in my entire life (I believe it went something like “Glory to the father, glory tot he Son glory to the spirit, glory glory everyone”. Absolute rubbish). Ironically enough, at that parish the Sunday night “teen mass” (featuring everyone’s favourites: guitars & drums) usually had the more accurate settings compared to the other masses.

 

[NPC]

I’m not really sure I’m understanding why you’re saying this. Yes, the settings will have to change, but that’s not exactly rocket science. The words changed, so the settings will have to change. Maybe for the first little while some of the pieces will have to be spoken instead of sung (which is already the norm for many daily masses anyways).

Obviously I’m talking about those who already sing the Ordinary of the Mass in English. Why should they have to settle for speaking parts of the Mass which they would normally sing when there are plenty of Latin settings? To opt for some Latin would be nothing less than Vatican II intended - it’s not beyond the average parish choir or congregation to sing the chants contained in Jubilate Deo which Pope Paul VI had hoped would provide a minimum repertoire for Catholics across the globe. Whether a parish is “conservative” or “liberal” is not really the issue - Latin is not (or shouldn’t be regarded as) an elitist language of the liturgy; it is within everyone’s reach & it is the Church’s desire that all Catholics should at least get a taste for it. That is why now is an opportune time to introduce some Latin chants.

 

[malphono]

Obviously I’m talking about those who already sing the Ordinary of the Mass in English. Why should they have to settle for speaking parts of the Mass which they would normally sing when there are plenty of Latin settings? To opt for some Latin would be nothing less than Vatican II intended - it’s not beyond the average parish choir or congregation to sing the chants contained in Jubilate Deo which Pope Paul VI had hoped would provide a minimum repertoire for Catholics across the globe. Whether a parish is “conservative” or “liberal” is not really the issue - Latin is not (or shouldn’t be regarded as) an elitist language of the liturgy; it is within everyone’s reach & it is the Church’s desire that all Catholics should at least get a taste for it. That is why now is an opportune time to introduce some Latin chants.

The thought and theory is wonderful, and I do agree, but at the same time I fear it’s something in the “things we’d like to see” category. There are parishes (and not a few, not by a longshot), where they might as well have a sign “vernacular only” at the door: the mere suggestion of anything in Latin would send them (clergy and laity alike) into a screaming fit.

 

[NPC]

The thought and theory is wonderful, and I do agree, but at the same time I fear it’s something in the “things we’d like to see” category. There are parishes (and not a few, not by a longshot), where they might as well have a sign “vernacular only” at the door: the mere suggestion of anything in Latin would send them (clergy and laity alike) into a screaming fit.

Yes, I know realistically it will only be a theory for many…However, in my case, I took over as choir director at a church only four weeks ago. Most of the choir’s repertoire was from the American “worship music” tradition - Haugen, Haas, &c. Now, of course, it’s not all bad music, but I felt that it was a pity for a choir to restrict themselves to music composed in the last 20 years and not at least get a flavour of music from the Church’s rich 1,500 year-old musical tradition. Thus, I told them that I would like to broaden the repertoire to include some chant - they had already done Kyrie VIII (de Angelis), but I decided that we could aim to have the Gloria in Excelsis for Easter. In addition, at rehearsal during the week, they very quickly learnt (without music) the simple Kyrie from Jubilate Deo (aka “Missa Primitiva”) - they’re singing it tomorrow. When we started the Gloria, the response was very positive - they asked me to just read the Latin to them for starters, and they were bowled over by how beautiful it is!

I know that most choir directors haven’t had the same exposure to chant as I have had, having worked in a number of cathedrals with strong musical traditions, but this idea that chant is inaccessible to average choirs and congregations or that chant is difficult to read, is simply untrue. Certainly, these misconceptions need to be surmounted…On the other hand, I think choir directors would be surprised to see how many people actually do know a bit of chant - most in my choir are relatively young, but many seemed to know the melody of the Gloria reasonably well.

As for unsupportive parish priests, I don’t know the solution, apart from that if anyone does want to introduce some chant to the repertoire they may be sure that it’s what the Church desires & the Church supports them in upholding this venerable musical tradition. I’m rather lucky in that a new prior was appointed around the same time that I started, and while I’ve heard that he would be rather “liberal” (I hate that term), he seems to be very supportive, thank God…