Pope’s upcoming Apostolic Exhortation likely to call for increased liturgical solemni

[RPConover]

Words do mean something to you when you know what they mean! Say I don’t know German, and someone asks me for a “kuli”- means nothing, they tell me that “kuli” is German for “Pen”… all the sudden I understand! This is how it is with learning anything ; first you don’t understand, then you do! How much would it really put anyone out to spend a little time learning a few basic prayers for the mass in Latin? I never told my highschool German teacher that I wouldn’t learn German because it didn’t mean anything to me. Comeon now, don’t be lazy, do your homework…

 

[mike182d]

tilis:

I thought it was the Eucharist that made the mass holy. Not Latin.

No, the Eucharist is what makes the Mass the Mass. There are other things that are holy besides the Eucharist, such as marriage, or holy water, etc. “Holiness” is not a property exclusive to the Eucharist.

Anyway, did you know that the reason latin became so prevalent in the Early centuries of the western Church? Because it was the common tongue of the Common people. The aristocracy spoke greek, but the commoners in Rome only spoke latin.

It would probably surprise you to know, as has been pointed out several times by other posters, that Greek was not just the language of the aristocracy but the language of trade and commerce throughout the whole of the Roman Empire. In fact, it is because of the Greek language held in common by almost everyone throughout the Empire that Christianity was able to spread like wildfire in an Empire comprised of numerous cultures and peoples.

It is the “vulgar” tongue. That is why we speak of the latin translation of the bible as the “Latin Vulgate”. So much for latin being “set apart” for God.

You have made it quite apparent that you do not understand my argument at all. The objective reasoning I presented to you had little to do with why Latin was chosen. My argument dealt with the here and now. Latin is not the language of the common people but rather, thanks to the Roman Catholic Church, a language reserved for God. No one else in the world speaks in Latin. It is, in the present day, a language reserved for God and thus “holy” by the definitions I laid out. What part about that do you disagree with?

 

[Walking_Home]

frommi:

I don’t…which is exactly why I doubt it will happen.

Just the type of response I expected from you.

 

[mike182d]

JKirkLVNV:

I agree with some of your assertions, but not in the last paragraph. Take English, for example. Certainly you can use English to curse or gossip, but Shakespeare wrote in English, as did Donne and Milton, Hopkins, Newman, etc. And Latin is not so very sacred that it CAN’T be used to curse or gossip (witness the grafitti discovered in sites occupied by Latin speakers, such as Pompeii). Language is an exercise in symbolism, words are symbols. We employ them to convey meaning. Who needs to grasp meaning in the Mass? God?

You bring up several interesting points throughout your post. Of course all languages have been used for profanity and of course English has been used to write glorious works of literature. I am not really defending the choice of Latin as *the *sacred language of all time - certainly eastern churches with their respective traditions of Greek and Aramaic are acceptable. Rather, I am concerned with one’s disposition. Consider attire. God doesn’t care about clothes any more than he cares about dirt or chairs. But if I picked up a chair and threw it at someone, He’s going to care about the chair a great deal. Its never about the things of this world, its what we do with them that matters to God. Dressing up for Mass is imperative not because God cares about flip-flops or torn jeans, but rather clothes are important to human beings - we dress up to meet important people like Presidents and Kings. Thus, when we strive to look our best for Mass, God cares not because of the clothes on our back, but rather the disposition of our hearts made manifest through out actions. This is why the poor man that wears his best torn jeans and finest muddied shoes has shown more reference to God than the millionaire that walks into mass with a crisp polo shirt, shorts, and loafers.

Language is the same way. God couldn’t care two-flips about Latin as a language. But what He will certainly care about is that in the year 2006, I honor God with a tongue not used to honor anyone else and I speak to God as I would speak to no one else because He is God, and God *certainly *cares about that. And I’m not saying Latin necessarily has to be the language of choice. Certainly Greek and Aramaic are wonderful in achieving this end. However, as a Catholic in the Roman Rite, Latin is important to me because it is the lanugage of my several thousand year old family - a family that includes St. Augustine, St. Therese of Liseaux, St. Francis de Sales, etc.

The great irony of this age of liberalism and excessive multi-culturism in the Church is that people will go out of their way to honor and respect every other culture in the world except our own. Apparently *our *culture is worth throwing away.

 

[frommi]

Walking_Home:

Just the type of response I expected from you.

Why,because I have one belief about the holy spirit and you have another?

Or does this fall back on my lack of regard for the truly “sacred”, “holy”, and “orthodox”?

 

[frommi]

Dominica33:

Unfortunately, it’s part of being a Catholic. Latin is the *official * language of the Church, not English, Spanish, Italian, or anything else. It is part of having a complete catechesis, knowing at least a minimal amount of Latin to follow the Mass. Again, it’s not what you want to hear, but there’s a lot that Catholics don’t want to hear.

So…why did the translations of the mass propers ever get approved in the first place?

And, most of this church of ours lives in Africa, or at least the fastest growing portions…do you think they’re learning latin in the Kalahari?

 

[jc-servant]

johnnykins:

Koine Greek was the language of trade, etc., at the time of Christ - not Latin.

Latin was also in common usage for trade and commerce and in the Roman government. It is what the common people spoke in a large area or it would not have been used by the church. Regardless, let’s not nitpick.

Who has said any language is more “sacred” or “holy” than another? The only folks I hear claim that are the anti-Latin crowd who think that’s what the pro-Latin crowd think. It’s not part of any argument I’ve ever heard from the pro-Latin crowd. Now many of the pro-Latin group do say the Tridentine Mass is more reverent than the Missa Normativa. That, IMHO, has more to do with the form of those Masses (and MN “innovations”) rather than Latin. Except of splinter groups like the SSPX no one I know is saying that Latin is the only “correct” language or way to say Mass. Aside from SSPX, et al., I have heard pro MN folks say the pro-Latin crowd say that - but that’s not so.

You are jumping into a whole different discussion because I am not anti-Latin for Mass. I believe I saw a reference in another post about Latin being more sacred than other languages for Mass. I’m not trying to put anyone down or jump on some “anti-Latin” bandwagon. I think Latin is beautiful but I don’t speak it! If you re-read my post you will see that I think YOU should be able to worship in Latin all you want if that is your preference. I think it would be great if every parish could offer the Tridentine Mass for those who want it. I also agree that the Holy Father can decide what language and form of Mass will be used. Notice I said that if I had to choose an ancient (not dead) language that I personally would choose Aramaic. I did not say it was better than Latin, just my preference.

As for music the new stuff I’ve heard has almost totally been dreck. Don’t know about your music director, but I would be surprised if it is anywhere in the league with the great classical composers. Folk music/folk rock is listened to by almost no one any more. I sincerely hope the Folk Mass goes the way of leisure suits. They are terrible aesthetically.

My music director is not a great classical composer because he has not been dead for more than 500 years, but who knows what history will judge. (The classics were not classics when they were written.) He has won national awards for composition and he holds multiple music degrees. He did not write a folk Mass but a very reverent classical one judged appropriate by the Holy See which approved it. I have no idea why you assumed it was a folk Mass, but perhaps that is just one of your pet peeves. I’m sorry that you have found music that people have written offering their talents to the Lord as “dreck.” Maybe you would prefer that they wrote rump-shaker type of things instead of God-focused music that does not meet your standards? It might be more charitable to consider it not to your taste but a sincere offering of their time and talent to God.

You might be interested to know the Roman Canon is the oldest canon in use.

If you are correct then I guess you scored a point or something. I was taught that the Maronite and a couple of other rites are older. No matter, they’re all Catholic. I would prefer to learn Aramaic if it comes to that and you apparently prefer to use Latin. As long as we both keep going to Mass and participating as fully as we can then what is the problem? Do you not understand that the Maronite rite is just as fully Catholic as the Latin rite?

It amazes me how some folks hate Latin - I guess they swallowed whole the myths of some liberal nun, brother or priest about the bad old days.

If this little comment is directed at me then I think you need to stop making assumptions. I never said that I “hate” Latin or that I don’t want the church to make it available. We actually use the Agnus Dei at my parish in Latin part of the time right now and the Kyrie in Greek which is just fine with me. You apparently have an ax to grind regarding the use of Latin that predates this thread, but I’m not the person you have an argument with because I don’t “hate” any language. It would be pretty ridiculous since I have studied multiple languages just for my own enrichment. I even have a Latin text and cd-rom at home right now. I just don’t want to spend Mass conjugating verbs and trying to translate instead of entering into the Sacred Mystery! At my age and with the lack of folks to have conversations with in Latin I just don’t see myself becoming bilingual so that conscious translation is not needed. However if the only way that I can go to Mass is in Klingon then I will do my best to learn it and be right there in the first pew worshiping.

 

[mom2boyz]

Okay it is the official language of the Church. Even I know this. It amazes me the amount of assumptions people make about others in these forums. To state it isn’t what I want to hear is to assume a lot about me.

But for over forty years it hasn’t been the language of the Mass. Now they can impose anything they want. But the language of the Mass is just an incidental to the Mass. Basically it doesn’t matter what language is used. It is my personal belief that those people who want the Latin back in the Mass think that it will somehow restore reverence. I don’t share that opinion. I think it will cause confusion.

Take for instance the change in when we stand after the offertory. Some people stand when the priest speaks, some stand after he finished, and some stand while they are responding. Maybe after 20 years everyone will figure it out. About that time some new bishop or pope will come along and change it.

This seems more to me like the Pope’s personal pet peeve. So he is the man in charge right now. He will get what he wants. In the future there will be another pope who doesn’t like this so he will change it too. So be it. The important parts don’t change just the incidentals.

If they put Latin words for me to respond, I will mutter the gibberish since I do understand obedience. I will do just what the folks did when the Mass was changed to the vernacular. I’m certain they didn’t like it either, but they understood that it wasn’t important. They understood was important and it wasn’t the language used.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dominica33:

Unfortunately, it’s part of being a Catholic. Latin is the *official *language of the Church, not English, Spanish, Italian, or anything else. It is part of having a complete catechesis, knowing at least a minimal amount of Latin to follow the Mass. Again, it’s not what you want to hear, but there’s a lot that Catholics don’t want to hear.

That is an OPINION, that it is a part of a complete Catechesis, not a FACT. Yes, Latin is the official language of the Church, but the same Church understands the limitations of trying to impose it on everyone (witness the current meeting/day of prayer of the Holy Father with the College of Cardinals. Latin is not being used in the conversations, according to EWTN, you can check out their news links. This is odd, since you’d think that would be the perfect time to actually use Latin). I don’t think the vernacular Mass is going anywhere and I think that if it were attempted to be imposed unilaterally, there would be such a reaction that the hierarchy would back off pretty sharply. There’s too much linguistic water over the dam and few people will want to loose the Mass in the vernacular. That doesn’t mean that Latin will be utterly forgotten, it can’t be, to be a scholar of the Church would require some Latin, just as Greek and Hebrew are needed for biblical scholarship (we don’t insist on a working knowledge of either tongue for people to read the Bible, why should they have to know Latin to attend upon the Mass?).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

mike182d:

You bring up several interesting points throughout your post. Of course all languages have been used for profanity and of course English has been used to write glorious works of literature. I am not really defending the choice of Latin as *the *sacred language of all time - certainly eastern churches with their respective traditions of Greek and Aramaic are acceptable. Rather, I am concerned with one’s disposition. Consider attire. God doesn’t care about clothes any more than he cares about dirt or chairs. But if I picked up a chair and threw it at someone, He’s going to care about the chair a great deal. Its never about the things of this world, its what we do with them that matters to God. Dressing up for Mass is imperative not because God cares about flip-flops or torn jeans, but rather clothes are important to human beings - we dress up to meet important people like Presidents and Kings. Thus, when we strive to look our best for Mass, God cares not because of the clothes on our back, but rather the disposition of our hearts made manifest through out actions. This is why the poor man that wears his best torn jeans and finest muddied shoes has shown more reference to God than the millionaire that walks into mass with a crisp polo shirt, shorts, and loafers.

Language is the same way. God couldn’t care two-flips about Latin as a language. But what He will certainly care about is that in the year 2006, I honor God with a tongue not used to honor anyone else and I speak to God as I would speak to no one else because He is God, and God *certainly *cares about that. And I’m not saying Latin necessarily has to be the language of choice. Certainly Greek and Aramaic are wonderful in achieving this end. However, as a Catholic in the Roman Rite, Latin is important to me because it is the lanugage of my several thousand year old family - a family that includes St. Augustine, St. Therese of Liseaux, St. Francis de Sales, etc.

The great irony of this age of liberalism and excessive multi-culturism in the Church is that people will go out of their way to honor and respect every other culture in the world except our own. Apparently *our *culture is worth throwing away.

I take your point about giving our best to God, but I would argue that Latin isn’t, by definition, our best (which you sort of agreed with, but…). I think it is far more important that people be able to integrate and take into themselves (and thus be transformed more closely into the image of Christ) what is occuring in the Mass and they can do that more easily if they understand the language. What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with the vernacular mass, provided we have decent translations? I don’t want to have to follow along in a book that which, up to now, I’ve always understood. I’ve understood where I’m supposed to come in, where I’m supposed to shut up, I’ve understood my place in the SINGULAR divine drama without a script. I don’t want to have to take one up now, at this late date.

 

[oat_soda]

Many people seem to long for Latin in the mass as a way to bring a different kind of beauty to it…as one who provides music for the mass, I think their are many different ways to provide beauty and holiness…it needs proper balance…thats all.

it isn’t totally subjective. sacrosactum concillium called for latin to be retained in the latin rites. also, gregorian chant was given pride of place. you can’t get around those two facts about SC by saying it’s all relative. it was only the readings which were to be done in vernacular. i think it’s an extreme interpretation of SC to say that it is good thing for latin and gregorian chant to be totally absent from the mass, which today it is by and large. all you have to do is watch how the masses at rome are celebrated to see evidence that latin and gregorian chant will always be part of the roman rite. tradition has more weight because it generally is time tested and true.

some art and music is objectively superior to others. while there is truth in everything, not everything is as good. there is no art for art’s sake in the church. guitars, piano, …etc. are not proper to the roman rite.

 

[oat_soda]

I take your point about giving our best to God, but I would argue that Latin isn’t, by definition, our best (which you sort of agreed with, but…). I think it is far more important that people be able to integrate and take into themselves (and thus be transformed more closely into the image of Christ) what is occuring in the Mass and they can do that more easily if they understand the language.

there is nothing wrong with a vernacular mass, but the church sees many advantages with latin. for one, it’s our patrimony. many writings important to the church are written in latin, and even the only offical catholic translation of the bible is in latin -the revised vulgate. another big reason is that gregorian chant was composed in latin, which has pride or place in the roman rite.

the readings and certain propers of the mass should be vernacular, but there is no reason that those unchanging parts shouldn’t be sung or said in latin. they can be learned quite readily and in western countries, latin makes up a big part of their vocabulary anyway. there are many more reasons but i think you know of them.

 

[oat_soda]

i think people who don’t understand why latin is so important to the church should read blessed John XXIII’s apostolic constitution on the promotion of the study of latin.

A resolve to uphold Latin

And We also, impelled by the weightiest of reasons – the same as those which prompted Our Predecessors and provincial synods 13 – are fully determined to restore this language to its position of honor, and to do all We can to promote its study and use. The employment of Latin has recently been contested in many quarters, and many are asking what the mind of the Apostolic See is in this matter. We have therefore decided to issue the timely directives contained in this document, so as to ensure that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained and, where necessary, restored.

can’t get any more clear then that. Latin is to be retained in the latin rite!!!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

oat soda:

. there are many more reasons but i think you know of them.

Yes, and none of them are a convincing argument for abandoning the vernacular mass. I can see the Gloria, the Sanctus, etc, in Latin, but not everything BUT the readings (God spare us that!).

 

[mike182d]

JKirkLVNV:

Yes, and none of them are a convincing argument for abandoning the vernacular mass. I can see the Gloria, the Sanctus, etc, in Latin, but not everything BUT the readings (God spare us that!).

Ah, I see the miscommunication here. I am not proposing an all-Latin mass, if that’s what you thought.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

oat soda:

i think people who don’t understand why latin is so important to the church should read blessed John XXIII’s apostolic constitution on the promotion of the study of latin. can’t get any more clear then that. Latin is to be retained in the latin rite!!!

But that’s a matter of policy, of discipline, not doctrine, and we may hope that doesn’t mean the end of the vernacular mass and the full-blown restoration of Latin in every Mass in every parish. I hope the Indult enjoys a generous application for those who want it, but I hope those who don’t won’t have to have it. I don’t want any more than the commonly sung parts to be in Latin. Also, it is speculated that the Holy Father will invite a greater use of Latin. That’s different than a mandate.

 

[Dominica33]

JKirkLVNV:

That is an OPINION, that it is a part of a complete Catechesis, not a FACT. Yes, Latin is the official language of the Church, but the same Church understands the limitations of trying to impose it on everyone (witness the current meeting/day of prayer of the Holy Father with the College of Cardinals. Latin is not being used in the conversations, according to EWTN, you can check out their news links. This is odd, since you’d think that would be the perfect time to actually use Latin).

It is perfectly clear why Latin isn’t being used by the Holy Father with the Cardinals: probably none of them know the language well enough to speak it conversationally! That doesn’t mean the situation should be applauded, nor that this is proof that Latin should be on the back shelf, all but forgotten.

Knowing some Latin for the Mass and other devotions does not imply the necessity to be fluent in the language. I don’t believe that it would be imposing on anyone to learn the rudiments to hear Mass well, anymore than it would be imposing on someone to know other parts of the faith, such as the spiritual works of mercy.

As others mentioned, the 100% vernacular mass was never intended. It is simply tolerated.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

mike182d:

Ah, I see the miscommunication here. I am not proposing an all-Latin mass, if that’s what you thought.

My parish has an outstanding music director who is an accomplished composer. We sing the Kyrie in the Greek and the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Mysterium Fidei, and the Agnus Dei in Latin. That’s as far as I would like to see it go.

 

[Dominica33]

JKirkLVNV:

That is an OPINION, that it is a part of a complete Catechesis, not a FACT. Yes, Latin is the official language of the Church, but the same Church understands the limitations of trying to impose it on everyone (witness the current meeting/day of prayer of the Holy Father with the College of Cardinals. Latin is not being used in the conversations, according to EWTN, you can check out their news links. This is odd, since you’d think that would be the perfect time to actually use Latin).

It is perfectly clear why Latin isn’t being used by the Holy Father with the Cardinals: probably none of them know the language well enough to speak it conversationally! That doesn’t mean the situation should be applauded, nor that this is proof that Latin should be on the back shelf, all but forgotten.

Knowing some Latin for the Mass and other devotions does not imply the necessity to be fluent in the language. I don’t believe that it would be imposing on anyone to learn the rudiments to hear Mass well, anymore than it would be imposing on someone to know other parts of the faith, such as the spiritual works of mercy.

As others mentioned, the 100% vernacular mass was never intended. It is simply tolerated.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dominica33:

It is perfectly clear why Latin isn’t being used by the Holy Father with the Cardinals: probably none of them know the language well enough to speak it conversationally! That doesn’t mean the situation should be applauded, nor that this is proof that Latin should be on the back shelf, all but forgotten.

Knowing some Latin for the Mass and other devotions does not imply the necessity to be fluent in the language. I don’t believe that it would be imposing on anyone to learn the rudiments to hear Mass well, anymore than it would be imposing on someone to know other parts of the faith, such as the spiritual works of mercy.

As others mentioned, the 100% vernacular mass was never intended. It is simply tolerated.

But NOW, it is so normative that it has virtually the effect of law. The hue and cry if it were to be reversed would be instantly given into by the hierarchy (I find myself a little cynically grateful for that…the hierarchy won’t buck where the money comes from on what is obviously an issue of discipline, not doctrine).

Also, I would submit that in this instance, the use of Latin as you suggest is rather pointless, rather like a parrot mimicing words he hears. What’s the point of learning any of the prayers in another language if you know them in your own? Prayer is conversation with God. What’s the point of knowing the spritual works of mercy in another tongue? What? Why not know them in all the known tongues of the world? I wish people would simply admit that when it comes to the liturgy, their advocacy of Latin is no more thanan aesthetic. It certainly isn’t objectively more holy.

This doesn’t mean I don’t think Latin isn’t important in the history of the Church. I wouldn’t suggest that we dispense with Greek or Hebrew (see previous posts) because that’s a part of our scholarship. The same goes for Latin.