Mass being said in Latin

[Peeps]

Again, did you look at the article I mentioned from the Vatican?

Yes.

I’m not saying that Latin should be abandoned. Indeed, I said that the Mass in Latin should be available in many more areas in the U.S.

But…I also think Mass should continue in the vernacular, and I think that this should be respected by all Catholics as long as Holy Mother Church says so.

AND…I do NOT believe that a return to the “old days” when all Masses were in Latin and all the women wore veils and all the men wore suits and all couples had large families will help Catholicism to become a major influence in American culture again. I think that secularism has become too powerful. I know that God will triumph eventually, but I think all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) in the U.S. are in for a very rough ride over the next few decades, and our only hope is to be unified. The divisions within Christianity are hurting us.

And when we create divisions within our Catholic Christianity, that hurts us, too. The Mass is the Mass–Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is offered to His followers–that’s what important, and what’s really important is that Protestants come to realize the truth that Jesus Christ Himself established–the Mass, so that they will abandon their imitations of “church” and get back to the Catholic Church. The more Catholics argue about Latin vs. venacular, the more difficult it will be for Protestants who see the conflict as another reason to distrust Catholicism.

One could argue, BTW, that there is “High English” and “Low English”. In the U.S. alone, there are so many dialects of “English” that sometimes, it’s hard to understand someone from a different part of the U.S.! (e.g., in North Carolina, you might be told that “Your tars need pumpin’ up.” What does that mean?! (Hint: “tars” = “tires”)

So should only “High English” be used in the vernacular English Mass? Southern dialect, California dialect, Midwestern diphthongs, etc.–not allowed?

 

[stpurl]

I think you’re overthinking the language, and engaging in a bit of stereotyping as well.

AFAIK I certainly did not, nor did I see others, mention ‘returning to women in veils’ etc. The fact that you did that indicates that you have a lot of baggage associated with the concept of “the Latin Mass’ that frankly just isn’t ‘there’. It’s been a tactic (and every ‘group’ uses tactics) to paint something that one group does not desire as being something not just undesirable for reason A, but for a whole host of ‘undesirables’. Compare it to people who talk about a political group (either one) as being poised to wreak havoc on the ideals held dear by the other group. Negativity, with a healthy (or unhealthy) dose of, “this group is not based in reality, it’s against all our open, tolerant, ‘understandable’ ideals which have the holy aura of the Pope and saints and therefore any attempt to align with these hateful bigots is a stab in the heart of the Pope, Jesus, and the poor, poor people for whom the vernacular was a RESCUE from mindless chauvinism, etc. Etc.

It’s just as ridiculous as those who claim that the vernacular is divisive, that all ‘modern’ actions are suspect, that all OFs are clown masses and full of illicit actions, etc.

Only a tiny portion of those who love the EF would say the latter but it sure seems a popular tactic to CLAIM that ‘most’ trads feel that way.

I’m willing to believe that despite a hugely popular tactic of claiming that OF lovers feel that EF people are hugely unrealistic and hateful, the MAJORITY of OF adherents are perfectly content to accept both Masses as valid, if you’ll be willing to believe that the MAJORITY of EF adherents are perfectly content to accept both Masses as valid as well, and that any attempt to stereotype EITHER group in a negative or ‘fear mongering’ way would be wrong.

 

[Irishmom2]

The article said that during an exorcism, the devil “hated hearing Latin.”

It’s a jump to think that mass would be said in Latin for that reason.

 

[Maximian]

Jesus himself probably didn’t go around speaking Latin, and with the possible exception of Matthew who would have interacted with the Romans for his work, the Apostles didn’t either.

Are you sure? Pilate caused the Titulus placed on Jesus’ cross to be written in Latin as well as Hebrew and Greek. These signs were placed as a warning to His followers. The implication is that some of those followers spoke Latin but not Hebrew or Greek. One such may have been the centurion whose servant Jesus healed, and with whom He conversed.

 

[Fauken]

Are you sure? Pilate caused the Titulus placed on Jesus’ cross to be written in Latin as well as Hebrew and Greek. These signs were placed as a warning to His followers. The implication is that some of those followers spoke Latin but not Hebrew or Greek. One such may have been the centurion whose servant Jesus healed, and with whom He conversed.

Jesus was crucified by the Romans for the false charge of treason. It was a warning to Romans and all those subjugated under them to not defy Rome.

 

[Maximian]

How many Romans do you think there were in Palestine that the authorities suspected of defying Rome, apart from those like the Centurion who were followers of Jesus?

 

[Fauken]

How many Romans do you think there were in Palestine that the authorities suspected of defying Rome, apart from those like the Centurion who were followers of Jesus?

It didn’t matter. Palestine was under Roman occupation, and Jesus was allegedly a king challenging Caesar’s authority. The motto “The Senate and the People of Rome” wasn’t for nothing; they were more privileged and more important than the “barbarians” of the territories they ruled. A Roman warning for Roman treason.

 

[Maximian]

I don’t get the impression you have informed yourself very much about the Roman empire at this period.

 

[dochawk]

Try the documentary series The Adventure of English which reveals that British English itself evolved numerous times and borrows from many other languages.

oh, i’m familiar with that (not the particular series).

English is a low german that stole stuff from so many other languages!


That it will keep evolving is the point. And at the same type, the commercial language needs to not change, and thus my suspicion of divergence.

I guess I’m a retail sales cleric then (sarcasm).

forgive me, @margaret_ann, for I have sold shoddy products . . .

:crazy_face:

 

[Julius_Caesar]

They would likely know enough words to follow simple orders from soldiers.

The majority of soldiers in Judea wouldn’t even have spoken Latin.

 

[dochawk]

I really don’t have data offhand on when auxiliaries became the majority, but the “top” officer would still have spoken latin in the early first century.

Anyway, palestine being handled by auxiliaries rather than legions of citizens would give even less use for latin for a local . .

 

[ralfyman]

I think the correct emoticon is

The same takes place for other languages.

I don’t understand why “the commercial language needs to not change, and thus my suspicion of divergence.” Shouldn’t it be the other way round? Languages used for commerce change given changes in economies, thus leading to divergence and more.

For more details:

World Englishes - Wikipedia

History of English - Wikipedia

 

[ralfyman]

They probably knew enough to follow orders, etc. The same probably applied to non-soldiers who traded with foreigners, and so on.

The implication is that a lingua franca doesn’t involve the ability to speak or even write in a language fluently but to know enough of it in order to engage in rudimentary communication (or better) with people who spoke different languages. In other words, it’s a bridging language, like the way English is used today.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I really don’t have data offhand on when auxiliaries became the majority, but the “top” officer would still have spoken latin in the early first century.

Greek is more likely. And by 30 A.D., only auxiliaries garrisoned Judaea.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Margaret_Ann:

I guess I’m a retail sales cleric then (sarcasm).

forgive me, @margaret_ann, for I have sold shoddy products . . .

:crazy_face:

 

[Julius_Caesar]

They probably knew enough to follow orders, etc. The same probably applied to non-soldiers who traded with foreigners, and so on.

The soldiers were local Syrians and Samaritans. It’s more likely they knew Greek.

 

[ralfyman]

Which was the lingua franca that time. After that, Latin.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Jesus likely spoke Greek to the Romans, including Pilate.

The reason the inscription was also in Latin is because that was the official government language to be used for a statement by a government official, not because some Latin-speaking followers of Jesus needed to read it in Latin. Those people would have been able to read the Greek inscription.

 

[Ragadash]

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_lingua-latina_en.html

 

[Shasta-Rose]

We do want more people to join the Catholic Church, don’t we? Aside from being born into it or marrying into it, I mean people who read, pray, and are in some way dissatisfied with their church or with being unchurched. We can get some of those people into the fold and thereby increase our numbers. And then those people can bring a spouse and starting increasing the population.

We keep hearing how awful it is, we only have a fraction of the Catholics we did during the 50’s and 60’s. (I’m talking about the US here.) I think we have opportunities to evangelize and bring more people in, but I don’t see that happening so much if a lot of the service is going to be incomprehensible to possible new recruits.

I think we need to be seen as more “welcoming.” Part of being welcoming means that possible new members know what we are talking about. Otherwise, I think many will choose to check out the Evangelical church down the street and then possible new Catholics will have walked out the door for good. This is a zero-sum proposition. Don’t we want to do what we can to increase our membership?