Pope to Reintroduce Latin into the Novus Ordo and Move the "Sign of Peace"

[BSHoop96]

I have seen the faces of teenagers – not to mention also the majority of their skin, if you know what I mean – during Adoration, and many of them simply display bland indifference.

Hmmm…I see teenagers with this look on their face EVERYWHERE. I don’t think it has anything to do with some of the prayers being in Latin. It has to do with being a teenager.

 

[JReducation]

The funny thing is, seminarians were never not supposed to learn Latin.

We have to be very careful to clarify statements like this for the reader, just like when we say that all priests must celebrate the EF.

These rules were never made for all priests. They were made for secular priests.

The formation of priests who are friars, monks or members of clerical institutes of Pontifical Right falls within the competency of their order. There are requirements of Canon Law that the must meet. But the law leaves most of the decisions to the Major Religious Superior.

Can. 659 §1. In individual institutes the formation of all the members is to be continued after first profession so that they lead the proper life of the institute more fully and carry out its mission more suitably.

§2. Therefore, proper law must define the program of this formation and its duration, attentive to the needs of the Church and the conditions of people and times, insofar as the purpose and character of the institute require it.

§3. Universal law and the program of studies proper to the institute govern the formation of members who are preparing to receive holy orders.

The program of studies must be proper to the religious community, unless there is a universal law that overrides. Thus far, there is no universal law that requires religious preparing to receive Holy Orders to learn Latin or to learn how to celebrate the EF. The Motu Proprio leaves that to the Major Superior.

This problem occurred at Franciscan University. There was a request for the EF on the campus. The Franciscan Friars had decided that they were not going to implement the EF. The reason being that it was not clear if they had to use Gregorian Chant or could use plainsong or plain chant. Francis of Assisi had taken Gregorian chant out of the friars’ liturgy in the 1200s. Everything was recited or chanted using plain chant (such as you hear the friars on EWTN).

Because no one bothered to explain to the laity the difference between a regular priest and a secular priest, there was confusion and anger. Some people went to the Bishop who said that he had no jurisdiction over the Franciscans, because they are an exempt religious order of friars. Unless they are working for him, they do not come under his jurisdiction. This made people angry at the Bishop, because they thought that he was skirting the issue.

The fact was that there was a parish just 10 minutes away from the University and the Franciscans were willing to provide transportation to anyone who wanted to attend the EF at the parish.

To conclude, for the benefit of those who come to CAF and do not know that there are these differences and that there are times when rules apply to everyone and times when they do not, those of us who post must make sure that we clarify this.

In this case, the study of Latin was a requirement for secular seminarians. Only those religious whose community required it had to study it. For the rest of the religious it was an elective.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Hmmm…I see teenagers with this look on their face EVERYWHERE. I don’t think it has anything to do with some of the prayers being in Latin. It has to do with being a teenager.

I have to agree with Hoop. I have been involved in patoral care of young people and their families for more than 30 years on three continents and three countries.

In general, I have found that American teens tend to be very passive about most things that are not entertaining to them. However, their look of passivity does not always indicate that they are inattentive or inappreciative. I was in Baltimore when John Paul II came to that city. The excitement of the teens was contageous.

Those teens who have participated in carrying the cross in preparation for World Youth Day 2008 are the most excited group of young people you ever want to meet.

The look to which you refer is probably what I call the typical American Teen Face. Go to a family reunion and you will see the same face. I believe that American kids are very reserved and even shy when it comes to religion, more so than their Latin American counterparts.

But we have Teen Life in our parish and they have Benediction and adoration every Thursday night and they fill the Church with over 500 kids. They also fill the church on Sunday evenings to mass, with the same faces. LOL.

JR

 

[ProVobis]

The statement was a red flag for me.

According to some leaks. In other words, the writer could very well have made the story up.

Probably did. The Latin is already in the Mass. The vernacular is by indult and the Pope can scrap the vernacular anytime. But I wouldn’t worry about it.

 

[Joysong]

Japhy:

You now dare to say “absolute mumbo-jumbo was the norm” because of the experiences some Catholics had with some of their priests?

Perhaps we should stop making generalizations at all. We’re all due to be scolded for them.

If you remember, Japhy, I was first of all quoting Fr. Groeschel who participated in the Liturgical Movement. It was his expressed opinion based on personal experience as an altar server, and also the consensus of the clergy affiliated with the Movement that extended far beyond simply my own opinion or that expressed by JimR-OCDS. The whole Movement was predicated on reform of the abuses in the old TLM.

I should not reveal my age at close to 70 [mama said ], but believe me I have a great deal more experience than you young-uns who can only read about it in hindsight. It was as we all said. I would never want to go back to that – ever! – now that I have experienced the vernacular.

 

[japhy]

If you remember, Japhy, I was first of all quoting Fr. Groeschel who participated in the Liturgical Movement.

I had no idea you were “quoting” him, since you didn’t put anything in quotes apart from “Liturgical Movement”. Apart from mentioning him “explaining” something, I took the rest of your post to be your own commentary with Jim.

It was as we all said. I would never want to go back to that – ever! – now that I have experienced the vernacular.

Your experience does not nullify the positive experience others had. And your argument that Latin was to blame needs proving; at least, that’s what I assume your argument is, since you say “now that [you] have experienced the vernacular”, you “would never want to go back to that”, which I understand to mean (at the very least) a Mass with Latin in it.

 

[benedictgal]

I think what you have written here underscores the issue(s) with the tradtionalist crowd. They seem to be caught up in outward appearances, completely disregarding the inner soul.

Evidently, there are some who have not heard the ancient saying, “We pray as we believe.” The problem with this kind of attitude is that it seems to think that norms and rubrics don’t mean anything.

However, Cardinal Arinze has made this point very clear:

1. Harm Done by Non-Observance of Liturgical Norms

Looking at things from a different perspective, we can appreciate negatively the importance of the observance of liturgical norms if we list some of the damages which can be introduced by ignoring these norms.

Liturgical abuses can confuse the congregation and occasion uncertainty, perplexity, scandal, opposition and factionalism. In more severe cases, they can obscure the Catholic faith and prevent the people from sharing fully in the celebration of the mysteries of Christ. To ignore liturgical norms can also reinforce a false understanding of freedom. In ecumenical efforts it introduces problems and sometimes a wrong presentation of the Catholic faith.17

To ignore liturgical norms can in a subtle way introduce secularization and gradual banalization into the liturgy. In this short-sighted vision, a church building may no longer be seen as a sacred place. Do the people then come to church for Mass as to a “meeting” like in a stadium or congress hall? Do they talk in church as if it were not appreciated as a sacred place separated from secular daily events? Does this tendency regard the norms on the use of liturgical vestments as triumphalism? Does it lead to a type of secular leveling down which prefers to say cup instead of chalice, plate instead of paten, dress instead of vestment, and president instead of priest celebrant?

To ignore liturgical norms can gradually introduce such erosions.

I have also noticed a rather alarming trend in these forums. Many seem to be guided by spirit and feeling without even taking the time to read what the documents actually said. For those who are critical of my suggesting that they should take the time to read what the Holy Father has written before he became pope, I would note that what he wrote “back then” is now the direction where the Church is heading. As for taking the time to read them and to learn more about your Faith and about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, what is so very wrong with that? Contrary to what some might think, the Holy Father’s books aren’t technical assessments. There is a great deal of spirituality and theology as well as education in these books. To completely and flippantly disregrd them is to not take the time to actually know his perspective on things. After all, he is the Pope now.

For those who are critical of Latin, it is the language of the Church. It is part and parcel of our Sacred tradition and heritage. The Holy Father is merely pointing back to that which has been mistakenly disregarded.

Furthermore, as I repeated earlier, no one here is denigrating the OF. While there are some who would twist our words to indicate otherwise, what many of us (including the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) have been saying is that too many people have followed the alleged Spirit of Vatican II than bothered to read what the post-conciliar documents actually said. This has led to a whole host of problems. As Cardinal Arinze notes:

It must be lamented — says Pope John Paul II — that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reforms, ***as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many.8 ***

No doubt a merely external and formal carrying out of rites without internal unity of heart and mind should be rejected. But it is quite another matter when each celebrating priest or local community presumes to have the right to create or invent words and gestures in the sacred liturgy. Liturgical norms, properly understood and observed, help to save the Church from such damage and see that God is at the center of our worship.

The issue of using Latin helps us to maintain the continuity of our sacred heritage. As japhy pointed out, tossing the red herring of having soccer moms learn Latin completely misses the point.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

japhy;

Your experience does not nullify the positive experience others had.

Actually the experience of Joysong and myself, was more of the norm. Its one of the reasons, Pope John XXIII called the Vatican II council, in addition to the fact that there was a great divide between the clergy of the Church and the people.

And your argument that Latin was to blame needs proving; at least, that’s what I assume your argument is, since you say “now that [you] have experienced the vernacular”, you “would never want to go back to that”, which I understand to mean (at the very least) a Mass with Latin in it.

Latin only help keep the people from full participation in the Mass, as Vatican II called for. Sitting in the pew, reading along in your missal, words you don’t really know, is not full participation.

From what I have observed, many young Catholics today, who are embracing the TLM, do so more as a novelty, something that makes them uniquely and different, rather than growing in the spiritual development that the Mass and traditions of the Church provide.

Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here. The TLM, can be very spiritually enriching, for those who understand it, but they tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

The Catholic Church isn’t an elitist club, where our rituals and traditions, are embraced for the sake of setting us apart from other religions and society. What we have should welcome those who are not part of us, and help them to grow in their relationship with Jesus Christ.

Jim

 

[benedictgal]

While doing some reserach for this thread, I found something that is quite appropriate to the discussion at hand, especially for those who are naysayers of the Latin language.

This comes from an adderss that Francis Cardinal Arinze delivered some two years ago regarding Latin and the Vernacular.

The Popes and the Roman Church have found Latin very suitable for many reasons. It fits a Church which is universal, a Church in which all peoples, languages and cultures should feel at home and no one is regarded as a stranger. Moreover, the Latin language has a certain stability which daily spoken languages where words change often in shades of meaning cannot have. An example is the translation of the Latin “propagare”. The Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples when it was founded in 1627 was called “Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide”. But at the time of the Second Vatican Council many modern languages use the word “propaganda” in the sense in which we say “political propaganda”. Therefore there is a preference in the Church today to avoid the expression “de propaganda Fide”, in favor of “the Evangelization of Peoples”. Latin has the characteristic of words and expressions retaining their meaning generation after generation. This is an advantage when it comes to the articulation of our Catholic faith and the preparation of papal and other Church documents. Even the modern universities appreciate this point and have some of their solemn titles in Latin.

…It is true that there is a tendency, both in the Church and in the world at large, to give more attention today to modern languages, like English, French and Spanish, which can help one secure a job quicker in the modern employment market or in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in their country. But the exhortation of Pope Benedict XVI to the students of the Faculty of Christian and Classical Letters of the Pontifical Salesian University of Rome, at the end of the Wednesday General Audience of February 22, 2006, retains its validity and relevance. And he pronounced it in Latin! Here is my free English translation: “Quite rightly our predecessors have urged the study of the great Latin language so that one may learn better the saving doctrine that is found in ecclesiastical and humanistic disciplines. In the same way we urge you to cultivate this activity so that as many as possible may have access to this treasure and appreciate its importance” (In L’Osservatore Romano, 45 (23 Feb. 2006, p. 5).

Here is the real clincher regarding what the Second Vatican Council said and didn’t say:

1. Did Vatican II discourage Latin?

Some people think, or have the perception, that the Second Vatican Council discouraged the use of Latin in the liturgy. This is not the case.

Just before he opened the Council, Blessed Pope John Paul XXIII in 1962 issued an Apostolic Constitution, to insist on the use of Latin in the Church. The Second Vatican Council, although it admitted some introduction of the vernacular, insisted on the place of Latin: ***“Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” ***(Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36). The Council also required that seminarians “should acquire a command of Latin which will enable them to understand and use the source material of so many sciences and the documents of the Church as well” (Optatam Totius, 13). The Code of Canon Law published in 1983 enacts that “the eucharistic celebration: is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided the liturgical texts have been lawfully approved” (Canon 928).

Those, therefore, who want to give the impression that the Church has put Latin away from her liturgy are mistaken. A manifestation of people’s acceptance of Latin liturgy well celebrated was had at world level in April, 2005, when millions followed the burial rites of Pope John Paul II and then, two weeks later, the inauguration Mass of Pope Benedict XVI over the television.

It is remarkable that young people welcome the Mass celebrated sometimes in Latin.

Cardinal Arinze speaks the truth and he speaks it rather clearly. Latin was never abrogated, folks. To say that it was is a very bad reading of the documents of Vatican II and of the intent of the Council. Remember, Pope Benedict was there. He may not have been a voting member of the Council, but, he was right smack in the middle of it He has repeatedly said in his pre-papal writings that we need to go by what the Council actually said than by all of this gross experimentation that happened under the influence of the alleged spirit.

 

[JReducation]

As I remember my childhood attending Catholic Schools in the 1950s and early 60s, I remember the beauty of the liturgy, but I also remember sitting there not understanding anything that was happening. I was moved by the solemnity of it all, even though I didn’t understand it.

I’m just throwing this out for thought. I’m not a liturgist. But I remember praying very profoundly as a child and falling in love with the contemplative life, so much so that when the liturgy changed I hardly noticed it. Even today, when I hear people talking about abuses, I have to admit that I feel stupid because I’ve never seen them or noticed them. I only remember attending two masses, when I was a high school kid that seemed rather strange to me, where the priest consecrated regular bread. Given that I’m 56-years old, that’s not a bad record. Two very strange masses in over 50-years of exposure to Catholicism is not too bad, compared to what others say they have experienced.

I have to clarify here that I attended Catholic schools, but converted to Catholicism when I was 20. I think I converted at 20. Maybe I was a Closet Catholic all along.

But the point is that when I attended mass then and now, I can’t explain it, but I’m not in tune with the environment around me. My mind moves into another mode. It’s difficult to explain, but I’m in another place where there is nothing more important than God. My focus is more on the Word and on the Eucharist. You can dance in a tutu around me and I probably would not notice. I think I owe that to the contemplative friars who educated me.

We were always taught the importance of a deep prayer life on a daily basis. We were taught to make space for an hour of daily prayer and meditation. The Liturgy of the Hours played an important part in our liturgical life. The rosary and spiritual reading are essential daily activities, as is quiet time away from everything. Spending time before the Blessed Sacrament was an absolute must, at least several times a week, if not everyday. So when I am at mass, it’s a natural progression from what I experience every day.

I’m only sharing these experiences, because I feel disoriented in some of these discussions. My experience has not been one of negatives either in the pre-Vatican liturgy or the OF. I’m just wondering if I’ve missed something.

JR

 

[JimR-OCDS]

While doing some reserach for this thread, I found something that is quite appropriate to the discussion at hand, especially for those who are naysayers of the Latin language.

This comes from an adderss that Francis Cardinal Arinze delivered some two years ago regarding Latin and the Vernacular.

Here is the real clincher regarding what the Second Vatican Council said and didn’t say:

Cardinal Arinze speaks the truth and he speaks it rather clearly. Latin was never abrogated, folks. To say that it was is a very bad reading of the documents of Vatican II and of the intent of the Council. Remember, Pope Benedict was there. He may not have been a voting member of the Council, but, he was right smack in the middle of it He has repeatedly said in his pre-papal writings that we need to go by what the Council actually said than by all of this gross experimentation that happened under the influence of the alleged spirit.

No one is saying that Vatican II did away with Latin in the Mass. However, if you read the entire document on the Constitutions of the Sacred Liturgy, it makes clear that the changes are for bringing full participation of the people into the Mass. As it happened, fuller participation by both the people and clergy, was better received in the vernacular than in Latin, and so the use of Latin dropped off as time went on.

Jim

 

[Joysong]

BG:

Cardinal Arinze speaks the truth and he speaks it rather clearly. Latin was never abrogated, folks. To say that it was is a very bad reading of the documents of Vatican II and of the intent of the Council.

I am utterly weary of seeing C. Arinze’s words on the same level as a papal encyclical. He is not the Pope. Until he becomes Pope, I prefer to listen to their teaching and follow it rather than a Cardinal’s, even though he may hold an office at CDW.

Paul VI’s general address of 11/26/69 inaugurated the final change from latin to the vernacular. Note the date of his address, which occurred much later than V-II which you keep insisting is the only guideline [besides than anything Arinze says], rather than any later development and proclamation from the Holy See.

I think it is a serious disservice to the readers of this forum for you to consistently misguide them. You will not find a single bishop in the US who agrees with you and who intends to celebrate the mass in latin at this time in history. Granted, that may change, but until it does, the entire church is not somehow renegade. The OF is in the vernacular and is called OF for a reason. It is the people’s mass and is celebrated in full vernacular in every public mass seen on TV with all the bishops present, such as their recent assembly in DC. I think I heard that 350 were there. No latin, none.

 

[kuppusamy]

As a Catholic youngin, I would LOVE for the Consecration to be in Latin and for the Sign of Peace to move (never made sense where it is, IMHO).
But then again, I would love to see EMHCs done away with, altar rails reintroduced, less P&W during Mass (maybe even moved to a special P&W time before Mass), and only altar boys.

Kristin you and I are in the same boat! I have been a Catholic for a mere three years, and wish our mass had more latin rites. I think it is the responsibility of the parents and adults in the parish to teach their children the english version on the rites. Bring it home to your family!

The Mass is very sacred and I feel like protestent-izing it has conveluted the message. I think P&W should be moved to a different slot - perhaps before mass? Or, even after? We have a special Charismatic Prayer service on Tuesdays…perhaps that can just be moved there.

The sign of peace is akward - it seems like it should be at the end of mass. After bread is broken or at the very beginning of mass. We are instructed by St. Paul to purify ourselves before accepting the eucharist - I think that is what the sign of peace symbolizes (or is supposed to symbolize). Correct me if I am wrong!

 

[benedictgal]

No one is saying that Vatican II did away with Latin in the Mass. However, if you read the entire document on the Constitutions of the Sacred Liturgy, it makes clear that the changes are for bringing full participation of the people into the Mass. As it happened, fuller participation by both the people and clergy, was better received in the vernacular than in Latin, and so the use of Latin dropped off as time went on.

Jim

Actually, the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has an answer for you, taken from his book, “God and the World”.:

At least, it is clear, I should say that the Liturgy of the Word should be in people’s mother tongue. But, otherwise, I would be in favor of a new opennes toward the use of Latin.

Latin in the Mass has come meanwhile to look to us like a fall from grace. So that, in any case, communication is ruled out that is very necessary in areas of mixed culture. …If even in the great liturgical celebrations in Rome, no one can sing the Kyrie or Sanctus anymore, no one knows what Gloria means, then a cultural loss has become a loss of what we share in common. To that extent, I should say that the Liturgy of the Word should always be in the mother tongue, but there ought, nonetheless, to be a basic stock of Latin elements that would bind us together.

Compare that to what he said, as Pope, some five years later in Sacramentum Caritatis:

The Latin language

1. None of the above observations should cast doubt upon the importance of such large-scale liturgies. I am thinking here particularly of celebrations at international gatherings, which nowadays are held with greater frequency. The most should be made of these occasions. In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, ***in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, (182) that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers (183) of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin ***and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant. (184)

Jim, I have read the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy. In fact, it clearly states what the Holy Father has highlighted in the above-quoted section of Sacramentum Caritatis. Even though he is speaking to the issue of large-scale, international Masses, the same concept certainly holds true for parish liturgies, especially those in multi-lingual and multi-cultural areas. My PV, when he learned that the Christmas Eve Mass would be bilingual, prayed EP 1 in Latin, rather than switch back and forth between English and Spanish (which, unfortunately, is the bad trend down here). Mind you, he’s not even 50 years old and he has a strong command of Latin.

He told me, afterwards, that he did this in keeping with the statement of the Holy Father.

Now, no one here has said anything about doing away with the vernacular for the Liturgy of the Word. What is the issue here is the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

 

[ethelzguy]

Of course abuses occurred back then. I don’t know anyone on this board who has said that we lived in a “golden age” of liturgy before Vatican II.

We’re attempting to rehabilitate the Extraordinary Form, so that it is celebrated reverently and well and without the abuses you mentioned. We’re also attempting to rehabilitate the Ordinary Form, for the same purposes.

It is good to hear someone say this.

 

[ethelzguy]

I am utterly weary of seeing C. Arinze’s words on the same level as a papal encyclical. He is not the Pope. Until he becomes Pope, I prefer to listen to their teaching and follow it rather than a Cardinal’s, even though he may hold an office at CDW.

Paul VI’s general address of 11/26/69 inaugurated the final change from latin to the vernacular. Note the date of his address, which occurred much later than V-II which you keep insisting is the only guideline [besides than anything Arinze says], rather than any later development and proclamation from the Holy See.

I think it is a serious disservice to the readers of this forum for you to consistently misguide them. You will not find a single bishop in the US who agrees with you and who intends to celebrate the mass in latin at this time in history. Granted, that may change, but until it does, the entire church is not somehow renegade. The OF is in the vernacular and is called OF for a reason. It is the people’s mass and is celebrated in full vernacular in every public mass seen on TV with all the bishops present, such as their recent assembly in DC. I think I heard that 350 were there. No latin, none.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[benedictgal]

I am utterly weary of seeing C. Arinze’s words on the same level as a papal encyclical. He is not the Pope. Until he becomes Pope, I prefer to listen to their teaching and follow it rather than a Cardinal’s, even though he may hold an office at CDW.

Paul VI’s general address of 11/26/69 inaugurated the final change from latin to the vernacular. Note the date of his address, which occurred much later than V-II which you keep insisting is the only guideline [besides than anything Arinze says], rather than any later development and proclamation from the Holy See.

I think it is a serious disservice to the readers of this forum for you to consistently misguide them. You will not find a single bishop in the US who agrees with you and who intends to celebrate the mass in latin at this time in history. Granted, that may change, but until it does, the entire church is not somehow renegade. The OF is in the vernacular and is called OF for a reason. It is the people’s mass and is celebrated in full vernacular in every public mass seen on TV with all the bishops present, such as their recent assembly in DC. I think I heard that 350 were there. No latin, none.

No one is doing a disservice to anyone if what is being written comes from a bona fide source. To totally disregard the Holy Father’s pointman on liturgy shows disrespect.

Furthermore, as Prefect for the Congregation on Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Arinze possesses a wealth of knowledge and invaluable resources that neither you nor I have.

The issue of the vernacular is optional; Latin is the default language. Furthermore, as Cardinal Arinze explains:

Extensions of the use of the vernacular followed. But, as if the Council Fathers foresaw the likelihood that Latin might lose more and more ground, they insisted again and again that Latin be maintained.

As already quoted, article 36 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy began by enacting that “particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite”. Article 54 required that steps be taken “enabling the faithful to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them”. In the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours “in accordance with the centuries old tradition of the Latin rite, clerics are to retain the Latin language” (SC, 101).

But even while establishing limits, the Council Fathers anticipated the possibility of a wider use of the vernacular. Article 54 indeed adds: '‘Wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Article 40 of this Constitution is to be observed". Article 40 goes into directives on the role of Bishops’ Conferences and of the Apostolic See in such a delicate matter. The vernacular had been introduced. The rest is history. The developments were so fast that many clerics, religious and lay faithful today are not aware that the Second Vatican Council did not simply introduce the vernacular for all parts of the liturgy.

Requests and widenings of the use of the vernacular were not long in coming. At the urgent request of some Bishops’ Conferences, Pope Paul VI first allowed the Preface of the Mass to be said in the vernacular (cf Letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State, 27 April 1965), then the entire Canon and the prayers of ordination in 1967. Finally on June 14,1971, the Congregation for Divine Worship sent notice that Episcopal Conferences could allow the use of the vernacular in all the texts of the Mass, and each Ordinary could give the same permission for the choral or private celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours (on the whole development, see A. G. Martimort: The Dialoque between God and his People, in A. G. Martimort: The Church at Prayer, I, p. 166).

The reasons for the introduction of the mother tongue are not far to seek. It promotes better understanding of what the Church is praying, since “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful be led to that full, conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy… (and which) is their right by reason of their Baptism” (SC, 14).

The key word here is “allowed”. Go back and re-read the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy. No one is disputing the option of the vernacular, which is just that, an option, one that became widespread for the reasons indicated by the Cardinal.

What is at heart here is the problem of people reading the Constitution based on some alleged Spirit rather than on its own value.

To shrug and disregard a very valid explanation by the Church’s leading authority on liturgy shows disrespect and a lack of understanding of how to correctly read and interpret the documents issued by the Holy See.

 

[benedictgal]

In his concluding remarks on the subject, Cardinal Arinze made a statement that certainly applies to this discussion:

We should do our best to appreciate the language which the Church uses in her liturgy and to join our hearts and voices to them, according as each liturgical rite may indicate. All of us cannot be Latin speakers, but the lay faithful can at least learn the simpler responses in Latin. Priests should give more attention to Latin so that they celebrate Mass in Latin occasionally. In big churches where there are many Masses celebrated on a Sunday or Feast day, why can one of those Masses not be in Latin? In rural parishes a Latin Mass should be possible, say once a month. In international assemblies, Latin becomes even more urgent. It follows that seminaries should discharge carefully their role of preparing and forming priests also in the use of Latin (cf October 2005 Synod of Bishops, Prop. 36).

All those responsible for vernacular translations should strive to provide the very best, following the guidance of relevant Church documents, especially Liturgiam Authenticam. Experience shows that it is not superfluous to remark that priests, deacons and all others who proclaim liturgical texts, should read them out with clarity and due reverence.

Language is not everything. But it is one of most important elements that need attention for good and faith-filled liturgical celebrations.

It is a challenge that he makes to all of us. In fact, it is a challenge that the Holy Father makes on a weekly basis in his General Audiences when he leads the faithful in chanting the Pater Noster in Latin. He has even gone to the point of printing the prayer on the back of the ticket so that way everyone can chant along with him.

Something else to consider as to why the Holy Father is now seeking a wider-spread usage of Latin is the issue of translation. Let’s face it: what we have right now is not at all suitable. The ICEL has hammered out a new translation that seeks to follow the norms established by Liturgicam Authenticam. As Cardinal Arinze notes in his address:

Translations should, therefore, be faithful to the original Latin text. They should not be free compositions. As Liturgiam Authenticam, the major Holy See document that gives directives on translations, insists: “The translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language” (n.20).

The genius of the Latin Rite should be respected. The triple repetition is one of its characteristics. Examples are “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”; “Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison. Kyrie eleison”. “Agnus Dei qui tollis…”, three times. A close study of the “Gloria in Excelsis Deo” also shows “triplets”. Translations should neither kill nor flatten out such a characteristic.

The Latin liturgy expresses not only facts but also our feelings, our sentiments, for example, in front of God’s transcendence, majesty, mercy and boundless love (cf Liturgiam Authenticam, 25). Expressions like “Te igitur, clementissime Pater”, “Supplices te rogamus”, “Propitius esto”, “veneremur cernui”, “Omnipotens et misericors Dominus”, “nos servi tui”, should not be deflated and democratized by some translating iconoclast. Some of these Latin expressions are difficult to translate. The best experts in liturgy, classics, patrology, theology, spirituality, music and literature are needed so that translations beautiful on the lips of holy Mother Church can be worked out. Translations should reflect that reverence, gratitude and adoration before God’s transcendent majesty and man’s hunger for God which are very clear in the Latin texts. Pope Benedict XVI in his Message to the meeting of the “Vox Clara” English Committee on 9 November 2005, speaks of translations which “will succeed in transmitting the treasures of the faith and the liturgical tradition in the specific context of a devout and reverent Eucharistic celebration” (in Notitiae, 471-472 (Nov-Dec 2005) p. 557).

That is why translations need to be faithful to the Latin text. The problem is, what we have right now isn’t quite up to snuff. That is not just my opinion, it is an opinion held by the Holy See. This is why there has been a strong push to get the new translations approved.

 

[Joysong]

The reasons for the introduction of the mother tongue are not far to seek. It promotes better understanding of what the Church is praying, since “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful be led to that full, conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy… (and which) is their right by reason of their Baptism” (SC, 14).

I heartily agree with this, and for me to rightfully participate fully “by reason of my Baptism,” I do this best when I understand the language. It disturbs me that some still think they know how best I can participate.

I respect the Cardinal’s leaning toward latin which is his right to that opinion and preference. But as I said, he is not the Pope. Since Paul VI used his authority to permit the full vernacular, should I then listen instead to Arinze and start a revolt at the grass roots to comply with a lesser hierarchy? You tell me. Is it appropriate? Do you really believe the bishops are reprobate because they rightfully follow Paul VI rather than Arinze?

It is one thing to say some day it may change and compose many posts admonishing us that Arinze would like more use of latin. Unless change comes down from the bishop and my pastor, there is little blame on my part for loving the present liturgy in the vernacular.

The undeniable fact is that the full vernacular is NOT changed YET, and it may or may not be as a result of this study. We are not in error, nor are our bishops, nor are our priests. So why all this proselytising and chastising as if everyone is in the wrong?

 

[benedictgal]

So, you only agree with him when he says something that you like? That’s not quite how it works. Furthermore, the Holy Father has also indicated his stance on Latin, which is about the same as Cardinal Arinze’s, whose remarks you panned earlier.

The fact of the matter remains that while the vernacular is allowed, the default language of the Mass remains Latin, as the Council documents have repeatedly indicated. That does not change. The vernacular is used with permission, but, Latin remains the language of the liturgy.

Furthermore, as Cardinal Arinze notes:

Most rites have an original language which also gives each rite its historical identity. The Roman Rite has Latin as its official language. The typical editions of its liturgical books are to this day issued in Latin.

It is a remarkable phenomenon that many religions of the world, or major branches of them, hold on to a language as dear to them. We cannot think of the Jewish religion without Hebrew. Islam holds Arabic as sacred to the Qur’an. Classical Hinduism considers Sanskrit its official language. Buddhism has its sacred texts in Pali.

It would be superficial to dismiss this tendency as esoteric, or strange, or outmoded, old or medieval. That would be to ignore a fine element of human psychology. ***In religious matters, people tend to hold on to what they received from the beginning, how their earliest predecessors articulated their religion and prayed. Words and formulae used by earlier generations are dear to those who today inherit from them. ***While a religion is of course not identified with a language, how it understands itself can have an affective link with a particular linguistic expression in its classical period of growth.

Latin is part of our heritage and its use has never, contrary to the views of some in this thread, has never been abrogated and, in fact, remains the default language of the Liturgy. No one is denying that the vernacular has a place in the Mass. You are the one denying the fact that Latin is the language of the Mass.