Pope: Mass in vernacular helps people understand God, live the faith

[Ignatius]

The Church and the people were aware that there was already an exodus away from religious worship happening from around the time of WWI. There is always this strange assumption that the Mass change *caused *the exodus when really it brought new life to the Church stemming some of that flow.

That is another interesting theory. Do you happen to have a good, peer reviewed study, of is this more on the order if the OP (I.E. an unsubstantiated opinion).

 

[Ignatius]

One cannot do a cause and effect. despite your sarcasm

Actually, a distinctly Catholic diaspora happened.

http://content.gallup.com/origin/ga...roduction/Cms/POLL/nxuhin33gekzknj4nwnwpw.gif

.

@FAB, that shows a pretty strong correlation.

 

[Ignatius]

in what language was the first eucharist spoken?

Probably Hebrew, the Traditional Liturgical Language of Jerusalem Temple Worship.

 

[twf]

Jesus preached in the language of the people. Apparently He felt they should be able to understand what was being said.

He PREACHED to the people in the vernacular. The Catholic Church has always preached in the vernacular. The homily was given in the vernacular even when the mass was in Latin. The Jews, Jesus included one must assume, preserved Hebrew as a sacred language for their prayers and rituals.

Vatican II explicitly declared that Latin was to be retained in the Latin rites (Roman Rite, Ambrosian Rite, etc). It also declared that Gregorian Chant was to retain primacy in our liturgical music. Both decrees have been ignored in most parishes (but not all).

I personally think there needs to be a balance. At my cathedral the mass is largely in English, with the propers often chanted in English, but the choir will often sing traditional Latin hymns and during more solemn masses parts of the ordinary, such as the Gloria, the Sanctus, or the Agnus Dei, will be sung in Latin.

 

[theoda]

Then we should worship in Hebrew.

You’re missing the point. He prayed in the non-vernacular liturgical language. At that time it was Hebrew. Today it is Latin.

 

[theoda]

First, not all vernacular is banal. Second, Pope Francis is a supporter of the Latin Mass.

“By the celebration of the sacred mysteries according to the extraordinary form of the Roman rite…may [the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter] contribute, in fidelity to the living Tradition of the Church, to a better comprehension and implementation of the Second Vatican Council.” source

On January 12, 2014, Pope Francis celebrated Mass ad orientem. source

On October 31, 2013, Pope Francis celebrated Mass ad orientem. source

During his January, 2015 trip to the Philippines, Pope Francis celebrated Mass in Latin. source

On December 24, 2013, Pope Francis celebrated the traditional Latin Mass. source

See also: Pope Francis Is No Liberal: 24 Examples

I think his most recent comments are merely saying that the reforms of the Second Vatican Council are a good thing, and we shouldn’t undo them. But preserving the Extraordinary Form isn’t undoing the Second Vatican Council, so I think there is good evidence that he supports it. I don’t think so, I think that would be committing a fallacy known as “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” i.e. “after this, therefore because of this.” Catholic Answers explains the fallacy here: archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9009fea2.asp

Here’s a selection: REMEMBER THE OLD JOKE that asks what happens when you submerge a body entirely in water? (Answer: The phone rings.) No one really believes that getting into a bathtub makes the phone ring, of course: It’s just an inconvenient coincidence.

But if someone were to argue such a thing, he would be guilty of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (Latin for “after this, therefore because of this”), which says that because B happened after A, B was caused by A.

Shortly after the United States broke off diplomatic relations with the Vatican, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Sensationalistic anti-Catholic writers such as Charles Chiniquy immediately claimed Lincoln was done in by Jesuit agents. (This view is promoted today by Jack Chick and Alberto Rivera.) A was followed by B, so A caused B. Simple, isn’t it?

You will sometimes hear that countries which became Protestant at the time of the Reformation subsequently experienced economic expansion and that Reformation theology was responsible. Since Protestantism brings prosperity, it would be good for all countries to become Protestant.

Even if this were so, should economic prosperity be our measure of theological truth? Should I join the church that tells me “God wants me to be rich” and promises that if I tithe to that church I’ll soon be a millionaire? More importantly, historians increasingly point out that the cause of any one country’s prosperity is an extremely complex matter which can hardly be attributed to the adoption of a creed. In our case, I think the fallacy is applied this way:

The Church was doing good, it allowed the Mass Parts to be said in English (and other languages), and now the Church is doing bad. Clearly, the language is at fault.

But that’s fallacious because it commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

I don’t think it is fallacious at all. In order for it to be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, they’d have to be completely unrelated things. They aren’t. The language of the Mass affects the Mass itself, and if said in the vernacular it could lose the reverence that is due at Mass. If reverence is lost because of language, then people lose the faith and fall into sin and leave the Church. Therefore,the language of the mass affects the Church and is partially the reason why people have left( not the sole reason, other things too)

 

[FAB]

@FAB, that shows a pretty strong correlation.

From the report on the graph given:

Bottom Line

The increasingly spare attendance at regular mass has been of considerable concern to the Catholic Church in the United States for some time. Theologians and other observers have variously offered the **cultural upheaval of the 1960s, changes to the church brought about in the 1960s by the Second Vatican Council, and national publicity in 2002 over sexual abuse lawsuits against Catholic priests as possible contributors to the trend.
**
Whatever the causes, it is clear that U.S. Catholics’ once-nearly uniform obedience to their church’s requirement of weekly mass attendance has faded, and Catholics are now no different from Protestants in their likelihood to attend church. This has occurred among Catholics of all age categories, but is most pronounced among those under 60. The good news for the Catholic Church is that the drop in attendance seems to have slowed or abated altogether in the last decade, spanning a most difficult period for the church around 2002, when attendance did suffer temporarily.

There is no way from this poll to see to what extent celebrating the mass in the vernacular had on this trend.

 

[powerofk]

in what language was the first eucharist spoken?

I’m guessing it was spoken in Aramaic (Jesus’s primary language and the primary language of the apostles). In fact, Jesus’s quotation from the cross of Psalm 22 (Eloi, Eloi, lemach sabbathani) was spoken in Aramaic, and the phrase Marana tha (Come, Lord Jesus) is Aramaic. Of course, the words “Amen” and “Alleluia/Hallelujah” are Hebrew, but probably ended up in Aramaic, as well.

It’s important to know, though, that not only did Jesus preach in the language of the Jewish people of his time, but St. Paul primarily preached in Koine Greek, and the Gospels were all written in Koine Greek, primarily to reach the people. And even though Paul wrote most of his own letters, he had to have a professional scribe/translator write the Letter to the Romans. Paul probably wasn’t well-versed in Latin, but the Romans obviously spoke it, and would have been more versed in Latin than in Greek. And even Paul wrote in his 1st Letter to the Corinthians that “speaking in tongues does little to build the Church, unless one also has the ability to interpret”.

In other words, while Latin is, and always will be, the unifying (and official) language of the Latin/Roman Rite, it is more edifying to the majority of the People of God to be able to at least have the readings and Gospel proclaimed in the vernacular. Yet, at times (such as at Papal Masses), it is more important that the Church display its unity. There are times that are better for each.

Think of it this way - I consider Latin to be akin to Thomas Aquinas’s writings. Magnificent, but not understandable to many, because most of us don’t have the philosophical or theological background to understand what he wrote, even through translation. The vernacular is akin to stained-glass windows or Dante’s Divine Comedy. Much simpler, not necessarily as deep, but still beautiful in its own way and easier to use as a teaching tool.

 

[theoda]

As a convert, I can say that if I didn’t understand what was being said, I would not have converted. Heck, I would have totally overlooked Catholicism. I’m a need to know type of person and well, they wouldn’t like it if I stood up and started asking what was going on in the middle of Mass.

Now, it would be neat to learn Latin, but when I was going through the process of finding the church for me, Latin would have totally intimidated me and I would have stayed away.

You could follow along very easily by using a missal. Also, the homily was said in the vernacular.

Here are the very important reasons given by two popes on why the mass should be said in Latin:

“For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time… of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.”- Pope Pius XI

The use of the Latin language affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine."- Pope Pius XII

 

[theoda]

From the report on the graph given:

There is no way from this poll to see to what extent celebrating the mass in the vernacular had on this trend.

You realize what you bolded lists the changes made by Vatican II as a cause of it, and one of the changes was use of vernacular language.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

You could follow along very easily by using a missal. Also, the homily was said in the vernacular.

Here are the very important reasons given by two popes on why the mass should be said in Latin:

“For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time… of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.”- Pope Pius XI

The use of the Latin language affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine."- Pope Pius XII

2 popes in the whole scheme of things is nothing, really. Pope Francis is what like the 266 pope? I’m sure anyone can find a quote from some pope about practically anything to fit their agenda.
The church teaches the same things in the vernacular. So, it isn’t like “true doctrine” has changed. Since it was promised that the “gates of Hell will not prevail” I fail to see how different languages will stop the church from “enduring until the end of time.” But whatever.

 

[Book_Worm]

It’s a poor faith indeed that fades away because it’s adherents can understand what is being said.

(Just the opinion of someone who attended nothing but Latin Masses for the first 20 years of her life.)

 

[theoda]

2 popes in the whole scheme of things is nothing, really. Pope Francis is what like the 266 pope? I’m sure anyone can find a quote from some pope about practically anything to fit their agenda.
The church teaches the same things in the vernacular. So, it isn’t like “true doctrine” has changed. Since it was promised that the “gates of Hell will not prevail” I fail to see how different languages will stop the church from “enduring until the end of time.” But whatever.

Rather than attacking the words of the popes, you attack the popes themselves. This is a fallacy known as ad hominem. If you do have an objection to the quotes, please explain why the actual idea is wrong rather than attacking the people.

You are right that Church doctrine doesn’t change. It has supported Latin. Can you find any doctrine supporting the vernacular over Latin? You have just made a claim that it does, now prove it.

Again just because you fail to see how it can’t happen, doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Many people have said they can’t believe something happened, and then it happened. And also since the universal language of the church is still Latin, the church still can endure through time. (Note that because the Church has emphasized the vernacular, it has declined. The popes were right.)

 

[theoda]

2 popes in the whole scheme of things is nothing, really. Pope Francis is what like the 266 pope? I’m sure anyone can find a quote from some pope about practically anything to fit their agenda.
The church teaches the same things in the vernacular. So, it isn’t like “true doctrine” has changed. Since it was promised that the “gates of Hell will not prevail” I fail to see how different languages will stop the church from “enduring until the end of time.” But whatever.

Also by the way if you want to talk about the whole scheme of things, most every pope until recently has favored Latin over the vernacular. It’s also interesting to point out that recently the Church has been declining.

I only selected two quotes but I could probably find more.

 

[LongingSoul]

That is another interesting theory. Do you happen to have a good, peer reviewed study, of is this more on the order if the OP (I.E. an unsubstantiated opinion).

As FAB noted, there were huge social changes happening in the mid 20th century such as the advent of television and the pill. A whole generation became enamored with the freedom and worldiness that technology was bringing them. In contrast to that, the Church which depended on their hold on theology and knowledge for authority, was no longer relevant to them. The Church response to update her practice was a natural response being seen across the board of authorities. I mean many of the traditional disciplines like law, chemistry, medicine, mathematics etc, used Latin as the universal language and we saw pretty much universal transition to the vernacular in those fields around the same time. It is natural. Modern communications and the opening up of the world of study to the ordinary person, was inevitable.

If you are right and the Mass changes caused the exodus away from religion… don’t you think the Church… the Popes and the Magisterium would be abandoning the vernacular Mass? No, across the board, the vernacular is here to stay. Possibly as the world is anglocised we’ll even see English become the traditional language. Who knows.

 

[Convert_in_99]

I like Latin mass, but I also like understanding and participating in mass. I’m not taking sides but there is one fact that can’t be denied, we have far more converts than ever thanks to Saint John Paul II. Could masses in languages people understood contribute maybe, but I’m a convert and im sure it helped me some.

 

[LongingSoul]

Also by the way if you want to talk about the whole scheme of things, most every pope until recently has favored Latin over the vernacular. It’s also interesting to point out that recently the Church has been declining.

I only selected two quotes but I could probably find more.

The relevant quotes are those reflected by the Popes of our times. They don’t speak in contradiction to the Popes of the past who spoke for their times. When Pope Francis say to the faithful (per the OP)…

“Let us give thanks to the Lord for what he has done in his Church in these 50 years of liturgical reform. It was really a courageous move by the Church to get closer to the people of God so that they could understand well what it does, and this is important for us: to follow Mass like this,”

He speaks for the whole Church in guiding us in our times. It’s theologically errant to juxtapose the quotes of one Pope against another to dismiss one as wrong.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Rather than attacking the words of the popes, you attack the popes themselves. This is a fallacy known as ad hominem. If you do have an objection to the quotes, please explain why the actual idea is wrong rather than attacking the people.

You are right that Church doctrine doesn’t change. It has supported Latin. Can you find any doctrine supporting the vernacular over Latin? You have just made a claim that it does, now prove it.

Again just because you fail to see how it can’t happen, doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Many people have said they can’t believe something happened, and then it happened. And also since the universal language of the church is still Latin, the church still can endure through time. (Note that because the Church has emphasized the vernacular, it has declined. The popes were right.)

I didn’t attack anyone. And I would appreciate it if you would not accuse me of things I didn’t do. :tsktsk: I finished reading in the middle of the false accusation.

 

[theoda]

I didn’t attack anyone. And I would appreciate it if you would not accuse me of things I didn’t do. :tsktsk: I finished reading in the middle of the false accusation.

Sorry that I msipoke. You didn’t attack them, but discredited the quote because they were only said by 2 popes. It is still ad hominem because rather than objecting to the quote itself, you said it was only said by 2 popes of all of history.(which is in a sense an attack on their credibility)

 

[KendraDZ1902]

2 popes in the whole scheme of things is nothing, really. Pope Francis is what like the 266 pope? I’m sure anyone can find a quote from some pope about practically anything to fit their agenda.
The church teaches the same things in the vernacular. So, it isn’t like “true doctrine” has changed. Since it was promised that the “gates of Hell will not prevail” I fail to see how different languages will stop the church from “enduring until the end of time.” But whatever.

Sorry that I msipoke. You didn’t attack them, but discredited the quote because they were only said by 2 popes. It is still ad hominem because rather than objecting to the quote itself, you said it was only said by 2 popes of all of history.(which is in a sense an attack on their credibility)

I objected to both quotes in the second paragraph. I have put it in bold now. There you go.