Mass in other Countries

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FightingFat

Guest
Whenever I am abroad naturally, I always attend mass. It is not always possible to find a mass in English and sometimes it’s nice to attend mass in a foreign language when you are in another country; the great thing is you can always get the gist of where you are and it certainly keeps you concentrating even harder.
On a recent holiday I was with a non Catholic friend who was talking to me about Vatican II’s influences. He said it was a shame they stopped the Latin mass, because at least everyone was united in that language. I thought he actually had an excellent point!
The reason mass was changed from Latin to the colloquial tongue, as I always understood, was so that less educated people could take a more active role in the mass; i.e. to open the mass up, but as travel becomes easier, we’ve shot ourselves in the foot a bit really haven’t we? My mum is pre-Vatican II (I myself a mere 35 years old) and she is from a tiny villiage on the West coat of Mayo, but she would say that everyone knew the Latin mass and she still has that Latin today. I studied Latin at school and love the language, I can really see a benefit to a universal Latin mass.

What do posters think about this issue???
 
I can see both sides of the language question for the Mass. You make good points! But making such a change in the Universal Church would be a massive endeavor on so many levels!

I love to say the Rosary in Latin with people who speak many languages!
 
I think that a Latin Mass is a good idea. Even if someone does not know Latin, they pick it up and learn the prayers once they are immersed in a Latin Liturgy. A good idea wuld be to have the ordinaries, which never change, in Latin (except for the Kyrie, which is Greek) and the propers, which change every day, in vernacular.
 
Peace!
Well, I think having a Latin mass would be a wonderful idea. We have a Latin mass about every 2-3 months in our parish. I wish it was weekly. After all, we have 3 masses each weekend, why not make one pure Latin? I don’t speak or understand it, but I’m willing to learn! My mother always said the same thing ( I myself am also 35, and my mom is pre-Vatican II educated ), it makes it easier to attend mass anywhere in the world, because everything is the same. The beauty of being Catholic- either way, though- is that the set-up never changes anyway, no matter which country you’re in. When I moved to the US, I still felt at home in “my” church, since everything was done the same way as in germany (I only had to translate all of the prayers, so I said them along in German for a while).
But hey, sure, let’s bring on the LAtin(why didn’t I pay attention in school when I had it for 2 years…:banghead: )
God bless
rk
 
FightingFat said:
Whenever I am abroad naturally, I always attend mass. It is not always possible to find a mass in English and sometimes it’s nice to attend mass in a foreign language when you are in another country; the great thing is you can always get the gist of where you are and it certainly keeps you concentrating even harder.
On a recent holiday I was with a non Catholic friend who was talking to me about Vatican II’s influences. He said it was a shame they stopped the Latin mass, because at least everyone was united in that language. I thought he actually had an excellent point!
The reason mass was changed from Latin to the colloquial tongue, as I always understood, was so that less educated people could take a more active role in the mass; i.e. to open the mass up, but as travel becomes easier, we’ve shot ourselves in the foot a bit really haven’t we? My mum is pre-Vatican II (I myself a mere 35 years old) and she is from a tiny villiage on the West coat of Mayo, but she would say that everyone knew the Latin mass and she still has that Latin today. I studied Latin at school and love the language, I can really see a benefit to a universal Latin mass.

What do posters think about this issue???
Click to expand...
The use of Latin in the Mass united the faithful everywhere in a language that was common to all and at the same time un common to all. It was unique to the Church and thus unified people of all racial, cultural and ethnic backgrounds in a way that the vernacular never could. You could go to Mass anywhere in the world and except for the homily everything would be the same and everyone would be on the same page, and everyone would know exactly what was going on.

As to going back to Latin, I think it would be a good idea but what I think would be an even better idea would be to do away with all of the variations that we currently have. For instance, why have more than one Eucharistic Prayer? Why have more than one Mystery of Faith or Peniotential Rite? Why have people kneel in some Dioceses during the consecration and stand in others? Why allow handholding and the Orans in some places, encourage it in others, discourage it in still others and not allow it at all in yet others? Why have people receive Holy Communion kneeling in some places and standing in others? And why would someone be denied regardless? Why offer the Chalice in some places and not in others?

These variations only create disunity and cause confusion. People, mostly not very well catechized anyway, often come away with a sense of not knowing what is going on at all, and not knowing what is the right way to do things. The endless experimentation and options offered are doing more to harm unity in the church than anything else and that includes the use of the vernacular.
 
The various things ofthe Mass have mystical meanings. 😉 For example, the four Eucharistic Prayers are representative of the four Gospel accounts.
 
So any one have the reasons we moved away from a Latin mass in the first place? Was it the way I posted? I’m sure there were deeper more thoughful reasons as well!
🙂
 
The document on the Liturgy that came out of Vatican II Sacrosanctum Concilium, published on 4 December, 1963, states:
  1. (1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (2) But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives and in some prayers and chants. Regulations governing this will be given separately in subsequent chapters.
Click to expand...
(3) These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Article 22:2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used. Its decrees have to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. Where circumstances warrant it, it is to consult with bishops of neighbouring regions which have the same language.
Click to expand...
(4) Translations from the Latin for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority already mentioned.
Click to expand...
This was ignored, by liberal, modernist liturgists, and Dioceses around the world scrambled to bring out texts totally devoid of Latin.
40.png
seek1st:
I can see both sides of the language question for the Mass. You make good points! But making such a change in the Universal Church would be a massive endeavor on so many levels!
Click to expand...
The Latin Mass was pulled out from under our feet, arbitrarily, and left many people disorientated.
 
I’d like to attend a Tridentine Mass, but don’t know where one is. I live north west of Pittsburgh, and don’t know of any by me, so I’d appreciate any help in finding a Church in my the Pittsburgh area that Celebrates the Tridentine Mass.👍
 
AJV said:
The various things ofthe Mass have mystical meanings. 😉 For example, the four Eucharistic Prayers are representative of the four Gospel accounts.
Click to expand...
I’m not real sure on that one since there are, if memory serves me, actually nine or so of them, which sort of blows your theory out of the water. And as far as it goes, I somehow doubt that the theologans who wrote the new Eucharistic prayers were in any way more theologically enlightened than those who preceeded them, and suddenly discovered that there were four Gospels and that each should be honored with its’ own unique prayer as well as five others for “special” circumstances.

No, I believe they created the new prayers solely for variety, nothing more and nothing less. Maybe they felt that additional prayers would keep people more interested in the Mass. Who can really say at this point just what they wanted to do?
 
FightingFat said:
So any one have the reasons we moved away from a Latin mass in the first place? Was it the way I posted? I’m sure there were deeper more thoughful reasons as well!
🙂
Click to expand...
Even though it is seldom done except in certain places, the entire Pauline Mass, which is the one typically used by the Roman Church, can be done entirely in Latin. Find yourself a copy of the Daily Roman Missal if you don’t believe me. Many people are completely unaware of that fact, as well as the fact that all official documents coming out of The Vatican are in originally composed in Latin and then translated into the vernacular.

The change to the vernacular in the Mass kind of took us all by surprise. Vatican II documents never in any way shape or form mandated the removal of Latin in favor of an all vernacular Mass. In fact, Latin was to be retained in a place of honor in the Mass. However, many forward thinking and progresive types within the Church saw the concessions granted by Vatican II as a way to push forward their own agendas and did so.

Now this is my own opinion and goes beyons the question of the vernacular in the Mass, which is really just a part of the whole problem.

They, the progressives, often the most highly educated and best connected in the Church knew full well how important obedience was in the scheme of things in the Catholic Church. They also knew how slowly, how incredibly slowly Rome moved on anything. So, they pushed ahead with their plans and their vision for a new and improved Church free from the shackles of patriarchy, radical feminism did play a huge role in a lot of this and free from the constraints of centralized power in Rome. First in Europe then in the United States and then the rest of the world. They knew that if they could get things moving quickly, Rome would be caught unaware and because of its beaurocracy, unable to respond quickly. Anyway, in their way of thinking the Pope, being just another Bishop, albeit first among equals, would never think of interfering in another Bishops area and they had quite a few Bishops on their side. They figured the faithful, trusting in the Church, and in them as their leaders, would not question things too much and accept the changes. And if they didn’t too bad.

Those that did question were shamelessly browbeaten, accused of disobedience and not being in line with Vatican II teaching. Ever wonder where the term** pre Vatican II mindse**t came from? It was an insult, progressives employed to put down those who questioned their any of their aims. What you don’t agree that this Church doesn’t need altar rails? How dare you!!! This is the new church and the new spring!!!. You are displaying a pre Vatican II mindset. . This was particularly true in Religious Orders, and we’ve all seen what has happened to most of them.

So, Latin got scrapped, Churches got ransacked, theology re-written, the Mass became for a while just about what anybody wanted it to be, Budist, Protestant, earth worship, Wiccan, Native American Spiritually filled, you name it. Anything and everything was all right. Religious Orders dumped, modified or rationalized changes in their Charisms, often leaving many members perplexed as to what exactly was going on. The Church became more concerned about Social Activism, remember this was the 60’s and 70’s, and less concerned with salvation. More concerned with the elevation of man than the worship of God. The Church was turned on its’ head… Tumultuous and terrifying times indeed for those not on the inside with the progressives…

It was during that time that radical Catholic students invaded the classroom of one Father Jospeh Ratzinger who was teaching a theology class. So vile and horrific the things they said to him in the interest of reforming the Church into their vision, that Father Ratzinger, now the Holy Father, was galvanized in his belief that things were out of control and that the Church needed to return to a more conservative stance.

It does appear to be headed in that way. Sorry for the detour.
 
Yes, but the ‘extra’ ones can;t be used at all Masses and the ‘Swiss Canon’ is not approved for many countires. And don’t worry, I’m thinking of the mystical explanations of those also.

I’m working on my mystical exposition 😉 of the 'Novus Ordo ’ Mass but it goes something like this:
Eucharistic Prayer I represents the Gospel of St. John. It is different from the other three just like St. John’s Gospel is different from the Synoptics. Like St. John’s Gospel focuses on the Divine nature of Christ, so the sacrifical nature of the Mass is focused upon. Why does it come first? Because the Divinity of Christ always comes before the Humanity. Starting with the text we see that the oblations are blessed once, signifying that we are united with Christ’s one sacrifice mystically in the Mass. Moreover, this signifies the cross which the soldiers forced Christ to carry- “so they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross” (S.John 19:17). Then he prays for the living in memory of the pious women of Jerusalem whom Jesus instructed to weep not for Him but for themselves and their children. And then the Communicantes reminds of the words of Jesus at the Cross- “Behold Your Mother”.

I’ve got to retire for the night so I’ll continue this tommorow or perhaps at the weekend. If you want. 🙂
 
Latin unites us to speak one language in the Mass whereever you are… If a mass was held in China and the people attending are mixed races and nationalities, then Latin will help us celebrate the liturgy freely without thinking of language barrier.
 
in the Western United States a Latin mass might be a good idea. I would say at least half of the Catholics are hispanic in our area and while the hispanics might be pushing for more Spanish masses, if it were in Latin, then everyone would have a common language and the homilies can always be in English since they need to learn English anyways.
 
viktor_aleksndr said:
Latin unites us to speak one language in the Mass whereever you are… If a mass was held in China and the people attending are mixed races and nationalities, then Latin will help us celebrate the liturgy freely without thinking of language barrier.
Click to expand...
But we have to remember that the LATIN rite is not the CATHOLIC church in its entirety. Within our Catholic church there are a variety of languages used in the different liturgies of our Eastern Catholic brothers - Slavonic, Greek, Aramaic, and at least a few others.

So there never really has been unity of language, although obviously the Latin Rite is far and away the largest.
 
Yes, Latin was a good thing. Definitely unifying. That said, we have obstacles today. First, the Catholic Church isn’t educating that masses anymore. Latin is no longer taught early on everywhere to the everyday man as it once was (at least when my parents were young). We need a major re-introduction to the Latin language. It’s not insurmountable to pick it up, especially if you’ve got any foreign language training. I would say it’s a little harder if you don’t but still possible in time.
 
I think that Fighting Fat has a good point. My husband has been a foriegn service officer for over twenty years, and we have lived in six different countries. We have had to attend Mass in a foriegn language in several of the countries in which we lived. Althought most places do have Mass in English if you look hard enough, I think that Mass in Latin would be unifying. We are now living in Israel, and I am worried because many of my Catholic friends are not attending Mass. They feel that the English language Masses are too geared to customs of English speakers from east Asia, and they feel uncomfortable. I have to admit that we drive an hour to Jerusalem to avoid these Masses ourselves. This situation might be avoided with a Latin Mass.
 
I like the idea of using a language for the Mass that is not a spoken language anymore, reserving it for God. Sort of like the Jews did when the everyday language was Aramaic they still used Hebrew in their worship.
 
Yes and even then it caused problems.

Jesus from the cross quoted a psalm in Hebrew - ‘Eloi eloi lama sabbachthani’ (‘my God my God, why have you abandoned me’). Surely most if not all Jewish males would have recited this, and all should have been familiar with it - and still a bunch of them thought he was calling on Elijah rather than God! Clearly having no understanding of the Psalms they must have been praying as devout Jews.

I see in this a warning against the dangers of praying in a language you don’t actually understand!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top