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

[japhy]

I am somewhat amused by the attitude that the TLM was somehow perfect and not subject to liturgical abuse.

Man, that was so 6-hours-ago. We’re past that red herring. Please, move on.

 

[BSHoop96]

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.

Oh please! The poster simply said that the vernacular is allowed, and until it is not, why can’t she use it without being made to feel she is “wrong”. She’s not wrong. I don’t believe she said anything about Latin not being the default language and I don’t believe anyone said it had been abrogated either. Now you have simply gotten to the point of arguing where there is no argument.

 

[BSHoop96]

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. The liturgy is the centre of our faith. If the liturgy powerfully reflects the Catholic faith, with humble, doctrinally rich prayers, the faith of those attending will be transformed. The external can never be removed from the internal - both are essential; an outward disposition or action can profoundly affect the disposition of the soul.

Proper worship given to God is simply the most important thing in the world. For this reason, liturgy is the most important issue facing the Church, and poor liturgy is the worst problem. Save the liturgy, save the world.

I think the liturgy would need to be saved from abuses. Vernacular in the Mass is not an abuse. At least not at this point.

 

[japhy]

What I am getting is a “We would “like” the faithful to start learning Latin.” Rather than “You ARE going to learn it.”

At Vatican II, it was made explicit that a) the faithful should be able to make responses in the Mass in Latin, and b) pastors were to arrange for the liturgical catechesis of their flock. So yes, the Church would like you to know enough Latin (meaning, know the phrases and what they mean) to participate in a Mass. She’s not going to break your arm, but you’re expected to be obedient to the Church. It’s part of being Catholic.

The quote below from an inset:
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

I would like to know “where” all these experts are going to come from to teach the faithful? I found this best explains my red herring in that “someone” “somewhere” is going to have to start the ball rolling.

What post is that from? There’s a couple hundred and I don’t have time to wade through them all again.

To simply read off of a “ticket”…how in the world can I focus on the Mass if I am at the same time learning another language.

I remember the Kyrie…as a kid…(after about 1969 that was gone)…but gen X and the millieum generation are clueless.

Some parishes still sing the Kyrie in Greek; mine does it particularly during Lent. How hard could it POSSIBLY be to learn the Kyrie? Honestly!

The US Catholics, I believe will meet this with great resistance.

Ah, is that a fruit of Vatican II as well? Learning it from our bishops, are we?

…and the end result will be there will be a parish or two in each Diocese that offers the Mass in latin…just as it does now. That is fair.

This isn’t about offering the whole Mass in Latin, it’s about restoring some Latin to the Mass in general! Y’know, like Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium said?

 

[benedictgal]

Oh please! The poster simply said that the vernacular is allowed, and until it is not, why can’t she use it without being made to feel she is “wrong”. She’s not wrong. I don’t believe she said anything about Latin not being the default language and I don’t believe anyone said it had been abrogated either. Now you have simply gotten to the point of arguing where there is no argument.

No, the poster insisted that:

The OF is in the vernacular and is called OF for a reason.

This is not a correct reading of the OF at all. Japhy corrected her on this post.

Furthermore, she erroneously stated that

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.

Where is the statistical data to prove that erroneous statement? It is unfounded and untrue.

Furthermore, there are a lot of incorrect readings here on what the norm is as opposed to the adaptation. The fact of the matter is that even the Constitution itself notes that Latin is the norm for the OF; the vernacular is an option, albeit, a valid one, but, nonetheless, it is an option.

 

[benedictgal]

I think the liturgy would need to be saved from abuses. Vernacular in the Mass is not an abuse. At least not at this point.

The problem with the vernacular centers around faulty translation. Cardinal Arinze pointed that out when he said:

The translation of liturgical texts from the Latin original to the various vernaculars is a very important consideration in the prayer life of the Church. It is a question, not of private prayer, but of the public prayer offered by holy Mother Church, with Christ as the head. The Latin texts have been prepared with great care as to sound doctrine, exact wording “free from all ideological influence and otherwise endowed with those qualities by which the sacred mysteries of salvation and the indefectible faith of the Church are efficaciously transmitted by means of human language to prayer, and worthy worship is offered to God the Most High” (Liturgiam Authenticam, 3). The words used in the sacred liturgy manifest the faith of the Church and are guided by it. The Church, therefore, needs great care in directing, preparing and approving translations, so that not even one unsuitable word will be smuggled into the liturgy by an individual who may have a personal agenda, or who may simply not be aware of the seriousness of the rites.

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).

…Indeed, we can say that the most important thing in divine worship is not that we understand every word or concept. No. The most important consideration is that we stand in reverence and awe before God, that we adore, praise and thank him. The sacred, the things of God, are best approached with sandals off.

In prayer, language is primarily for contact with God. No doubt, language is also for intelligible communication between us humans. But contact with God has priority. In the mystic, such contact with God approaches and sometimes reaches the ineffable, the mystical silence where language ceases. There is therefore no surprise if liturgical language differs somewhat from our every-day language. Liturgical language strives to express Christian prayer where the mysteries of Christ are celebrated.

As if putting together these various elements needed in order to produce good liturgical translations, let us quote from the address of Pope John Paul II to American Bishops from California, Nevada and Hawaii during their 1993 ad limina visit to Rome. He was asking them in translations to guard the full doctrinal integrity and beauty of the original texts: “One of your responsibilities in this regard is to make available exact and appropriate translations of the official liturgical books so that, following the required review and confirmation by the Holy See, they may be an instrument and guarantee of a genuine sharing in the mystery of Christ and the Church: lex orandi, lex credendi. The arduous task of translation must guard the full doctrinal integrity and, according to the genius of each language, the beauty of the original texts. When so many people are thirsting for the Living God – whose majesty and mercy are at the heart of liturgical prayer – the Church must respond with a language of praise and worship which fosters respect and gratitude for God’s greatness, compassion and power. When the faithful gather to celebrate the work of our Redemption, the language of their prayer – free from doctrinal ambiguity and ideological influence – should foster the dignity and beauty of the celebration itself, while faithfully expressing the Church’s faith and unity” (in Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, XVI, 2 (1993) p. 1399-1400).

That is why the issue of the correct language and the most accurate translation is crucial.

 

[BSHoop96]

Consider this thread preparation, catechesis, advance “warning”, if you will. Imagine if the change HAD already been decreed! Imagine the outcry you’d find here. Instead, we’re trying to discuss the matter civilly, and provide catechesis on the topic of Latin in the Mass. Dispelling rumors, in some cases.

Hmmmm…it doesn’t feel like that’s what you’re doing. It feels like you’re chastising.

 

[BSHoop96]

The fact of the matter is that even the Constitution itself notes that Latin is the norm for the OF; the vernacular is an option, albeit, a valid one, but, nonetheless, it is an option.

I actually think this was the point she was trying to make. Why should someone be berated for following a valid option.

 

[BSHoop96]

That is why the issue of the correct language and the most accurate translation is crucial.

??? There’s no argument here. Of course translation is crucial. Did someone say it wasn’t? I think they are working on that aren’t they?

 

[benedictgal]

??? There’s no argument here. Of course translation is crucial. Did someone say it wasn’t? I think they are working on that aren’t they?

They were until the whole thing got derailed at the June USCCB meeting. They didn’t get enough of a quorum.

Now, Joysong keeps insisting that the vernacular is the norm. It is an adaptation, but, not the norm.

Now, there is something important that has been virtually ignored in this thread, the issue of “pro multis”, which, I suspect, is the driving force behind the Pope’s push for Latin in the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

While the current translation “for all” is valid for the time being (until such time as the new translations are approved–correct me if I’m misreading this, japhy), the Congregation for Divine Worship issued this statement back in 2005:

There are, however, many arguments in favour of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:

a. The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to “many” (pollvn) for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said “for all” (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is “for many”, and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.

b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.

c. The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.

d. “For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.

e. The expression “for many”, while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the “many” to whom the text refers.

f. In line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.

1. The Bishops’ Conferences of those countries where the formula “for all” or its equivalent is currently in use are therefore requested to undertake the necessary catechesis of the faithful on this matter in the next one or two years to prepare them for the introduction of a precise vernacular translation of the formula pro multis (e.g, “for many”, “per molti”, etc.) in the next translation of the Roman Missal that the Bishops and the Holy See will approve for use in their country.

As I stated earlier, the Congregation notes that there is no doubt as to the validity of using “for all” in the EP, it is simply asking that all translations conform to the Latin original “pro multis” per Liturgicam Authenticam.

 

[Nino]

Great,The changes to the holy sacrifice of the Mass have proven to be a disaster.I recall as a high school teacher in a catholic (small C) school,the 'liturgys" ! were outrageous…and the so called kiss of peace always resulted in a mad dash,over chairs and aisles…they were and I guess still are, held in the school auditorium !..boys and girls rushing to hug and kiss etc…the noise and giggling never slowed down after that…as far as the Latin…that was so much nicer then the sophomoric englush ! we got …so much more high class maybe the prayer to St.Michael also may come back…that evil is prowling thru the world more then ever…(sorry about my sentence structure,am typing this late)

 

[nightwalker]

I actually think this was the point she was trying to make. Why should someone be berated for following a valid option.

“No Latin. None”

The problem is that some seem to have is what’s good for the goose apparently isn’t good for the gander? Even when one is advocating an option and others welcoming a return to the norm?

 

[Julianna]

At Vatican II, it was made explicit that a) the faithful should be able to make responses in the Mass in Latin, and b) pastors were to arrange for the liturgical catechesis of their flock. So yes, the Church would like you to know enough Latin (meaning, know the phrases and what they mean) to participate in a Mass. She’s not going to break your arm, but you’re expected to be obedient to the Church. It’s part of being Catholic.

come on you know this is just a segway back to the day

What post is that from? There’s a couple hundred and I don’t have time to wade through them all again.

sorry about that…it was from a post from benedictgal…I do read the inserts about Cardinals opinions and what he/they would “like”.


Some parishes still sing the Kyrie in Greek; mine does it particularly during Lent. How hard could it POSSIBLY be to learn the Kyrie? Honestly!
to learn the Kyrie…may be easy…to fully understand what is going on when you say it…is another thing…

Ah, is that a fruit of Vatican II as well? Learning it from our bishops, are we?
Since you all are so up on history…let’s go back to the early 1900’s when the flood of immigrants…(my grandparents among them) came to the US. They brought with them their Catholicism. Many of these immigrants were not wealthy and poorly educated, if at all. They were taught from “day 1”…never…ever…ever…question the Church…do whatever Fr. so and so says…do whatever Sr. so and so says…or else. Fast forward 2008, the young people of this country…do question…as a baby boomer…I questioned. As a 6 yr old I really beleived the the priests and nuns and the Pope were closer to God than I could ever be and that I was …“less than”…and that they all floated on clouds. I know better now…so do my children…so do thousands of other Catholics in this country. I am not speaking of the radical left Catholics…I am refering to those who don’t cower in fear tactics their grandparents experienced. American Catholics don’t run and hide when someone says “Consider this thread preparation, catechesis, advance **“warning”, **if you will.” The reason is that vernacular centers around faulty translation doesn’t seem to have any bite to it.

This isn’t about offering the whole Mass in Latin, it’s about restoring some Latin to the Mass in general! Y’know, like Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium said?

Hey great…have the whole Mass in Latin…makes no nevermind to me. Latin isn’t more reverent or solemn…or better. I doubt God is looking down and thinking…“hmmmm the Latin Mass…they are good people…and oh, those ghastly english speaking masses…”

Vatican II was a breath of fresh air. I agree with others in that it should be followed correctly.

This isn’t about “parts” of Mass in Latin…this about total immersion into it. Don’t kid yourselves. It’s not about solemn, reverant worship…it’s about…dare I say… …CONTROL.

 

[benedictgal]

Great,The changes to the holy sacrifice of the Mass have proven to be a disaster.I recall as a high school teacher in a catholic (small C) school,the 'liturgys" ! were outrageous…and the so called kiss of peace always resulted in a mad dash,over chairs and aisles…they were and I guess still are, held in the school auditorium !..boys and girls rushing to hug and kiss etc…the noise and giggling never slowed down after that…as far as the Latin…that was so much nicer then the sophomoric englush ! we got …so much more high class maybe the prayer to St.Michael also may come back…that evil is prowling thru the world more then ever…(sorry about my sentence structure,am typing this late)

You have highlighted some of the very serious problems that ran rampant when people followed the alleged Spirit of Vatican II than what the documents actually said.

In his book, God and the World, the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger offered these observations some five or six years ago:

The Second Vatican Council undoubtedly had in mind organic growth and renewal. But, ae have to see clearly that today there are widespread tendencies toward conducting simple dismantling and reassembly–and they are thereby doing something that cannot be reconciled with the nature of the liturgy. You simply cannot devise in professional commissions what will be better in pastoral practice; what will be more practically effective, and to other such things; rather, you must look, with great respect for what is carrying the riches of the centuries within it, and see where it is necessary and possible to supplement or to prune back in a way that is meaningful.

…We do, at least, need a new liturgical consciousness, to be rid of this spirit of fabrication. Things have gone so far that Sunday liturgy groups are cobbling together the liturgy for themselves. What is being offered here is certainly the work of a few clever and hard-working people who have made something up. But, what I enounter in that is no longer the Wholly Other, the Holy One being offered to me, but rather, the cleverness and hard work of a few people. And I notice that that is not what I am looking for. It’s too little, and, it’s something else. The most important thing today is that we should regain respect for the liturgy and for the fact that it is not to be manipulated.

That is why, ever since he’s become Pope, Benedict is making inroads at trying to reform the reform. Unfortunately, there will be those who are containt with the failed status quo; however, that is not going to derail the Benedictine express.

 

[japhy]

Hmmmm…it doesn’t feel like that’s what you’re doing. It feels like you’re chastising.

Could you give examples, please? I’ll work on changing my tone.

When people say things like “we don’t have time to learn Latin”, I’m correcting them. The Church is not asking us to “learn Latin”.

When people say the Ordinary Form is a “vernacular Mass”, I’m correcting them. Its typical form is Latin; vernacular translations must be approved, while the Latin original can be used without further ado.

When people say that reincorporating Latin into the Ordinary Form is a “step backwards”, I’m correcting them. If they have a problem with “stepping backwards”, why are they ok with the restoration of the Responsorial Psalm, Prayer of the Faithful, Communion in the hand, etc.? Not every retrieval from the past is a “step backwards”.

If this is chastising, so be it. But I’m sensing a reticence about and resistance to Latin here… some people have had bad experiences with it, and I’m sorry for them, but their experiences were with people, and lack of catechesis was a factor as well. I can’t change the experiences they had, but I can try to teach them about Latin in the Mass so that they don’t remain turned off to it forever.

 

[benedictgal]

Hey great…have the whole Mass in Latin…makes no nevermind to me. Latin isn’t more reverent or solemn…or better. I doubt God is looking down and thinking…“hmmmm the Latin Mass…they are good people…and oh, those ghastly english speaking masses…”

Vatican II was a breath of fresh air. I agree with others in that it should be followed correctly.

This isn’t about “parts” of Mass in Latin…this about total immersion into it. Don’t kid yourselves. It’s not about solemn, reverant worship…it’s about…dare I say… …CONTROL.

That is a very sad, and very incorrect way, at looking at Latin. Have you not read any of the posts here that contain quotes from authoritative sources like Cardinal Arinze, Msgr. Marini and the Holy Father, himself, as well as the documents? Latin remains the language of the Church. It is the language that our ancestors in the faith cherished. To simply disregard it and to be flippant about it is to not understand, in my opinion, what tradition is about.

Have you not witnessed a Papal Mass? There is something intrinsically solemn and majestic about Latin. 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.

The Holy Father is trying to steer this liturgical ship back on course. If it takes re-affirming the pre-eminence of Latin in the Mass, then, so be it.

 

[japhy]

Julianna, you’ve made it difficult for me to quote you by embedding your response in my own quote.

**I SAID: **At Vatican II, it was made explicit that a) the faithful should be able to make responses in the Mass in Latin, and b) pastors were to arrange for the liturgical catechesis of their flock. So yes, the Church would like you to know enough Latin (meaning, know the phrases and what they mean) to participate in a Mass. She’s not going to break your arm, but you’re expected to be obedient to the Church. It’s part of being Catholic.
YOU SAID: come on you know this is just a segway back to the day

I have no idea what you mean by this. Could you explain your comment better? Vatican II said that Latin is to be retained in the Mass and that, above all, pastors need to educate their parishes. THIS IS WHAT THE COUNCIL SAID! Why wouldn’t we be obedient to the Church in her Council documents? What “back to the day” business is this? The Church never intended for this radical change (removal of Latin) to happen. The document makes this clear. Please explain your answer further if I’ve misunderstood.

sorry about that…it was from a post from benedictgal…I do read the inserts about Cardinals opinions and what he/they would “like”.

Perhaps you or benedictgal took the quote out of context? The context of the quote (“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.”) is about coming up with accurate translations of the Latin for vernacular versions of the Mass. The quote was NOT about catechizing the lay people for the use of Latin in the Mass. So I don’t see where you were going with this…

to learn the Kyrie…may be easy…to fully understand what is going on when you say it…is another thing…

“Fully understand” what? Kyrie, eleison = “Lord, have mercy”. Christe, eleison = “Christ, have mercy”. End of story! When we pray that, we’re praying the same thing as when we say “Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.” Don’t make this more complicated than it is.

I SAID: Ah, is that a fruit of Vatican II as well? Learning it from our bishops, are we?
YOU SAID: Since you all are so up on history…let’s go back to the early 1900’s when the flood of immigrants…(my grandparents among them) came to the US. They brought with them their Catholicism. Many of these immigrants were not wealthy and poorly educated, if at all. They were taught from “day 1”…never…ever…ever…question the Church…do whatever Fr. so and so says…do whatever Sr. so and so says…or else. Fast forward 2008, the young people of this country…do question…as a baby boomer…I questioned. As a 6 yr old I really beleived the the priests and nuns and the Pope were closer to God than I could ever be and that I was …“less than”…and that they all floated on clouds. I know better now…so do my children…so do thousands of other Catholics in this country. I am not speaking of the radical left Catholics…I am refering to those who don’t cower in fear tactics their grandparents experienced. American Catholics don’t run and hide when someone says “Consider this thread preparation, catechesis, advance “warning”, if you will.” The reason is that vernacular centers around faulty translation doesn’t seem to have any bite to it.

What are the “fear tactics” I’m using here? This thread is about the possibility of the return of Latin to the Mass. People have some false notions about what that means. I’m trying to educate them about the Church’s intent for Latin in the Mass. And I’m sorry to inform you that some of the English translation of the Mass is sub-par. I learned that when I got up the courage to question the Church!

Vatican II was a breath of fresh air. I agree with others in that it should be followed correctly.

Good. Then Latin should be retained in the Mass, and Gregorian chant and the organ should be given pride of place as the music and instrument proper to the Roman Rite. And a whole bunch of other things that Vatican II said should be followed as well. Let’s start with proper catechesis, ok? We’ll get into the Latin and the music later.

This isn’t about “parts” of Mass in Latin…this about total immersion into it. Don’t kid yourselves.

Hey, if Joysong shouldn’t have other people dictate to her how best she can participate, I shouldn’t have other people dictate to me what my perception of the issue is. This is not about “total immersion” into Latin. This thread is about the re-introduction of SOME Latin into the Mass. If you want to make more of that, start your own thread.

It’s not about solemn, reverant worship…it’s about…dare I say… …CONTROL.

Prove it. Otherwise, game over. Seriously, defend this statement. Who wants to control whom? The Pope wants to control you? How does Latin give the Pope control over you? Are you expecting he’ll change the words out from under our feet, and we’ll just go along parroting some Latin, not aware of what we’re saying or anything that’s happening? I can assure you, the Church does NOT want that.

I’d say it’s about humility. We are obliged to be obedient to the Church; that means obedience to our pastor, our bishop, and the Pope; obedience to the divine teachings of the Church; obedience to her legislation.

Vatican II didn’t change that.

 

[benedictgal]

In my defense, all I did was post the quote:

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.

This statement, coming from Francis Cardinal Arinze, speaks to translation. In fact, the one who lifted this quote from the text I posted was the one who made the statement that japhy is referencing.

I only included this because, in order to have a well-rounded discussion, other factors should be examined, including translation, to better understand the Holy Father’s perspective. The issue of translation is certainly germaine to this discussion because I believe that is one of the reasons why there is a call for a greater use of Latin.

I might also add that Julianna is making this statement completely out of context:

*To simply read off of a “ticket”…*how in the world can I focus on the Mass if I am at the same time learning another language…sounds like on the job training

First of all, Julianna, please carefully re-read what I wrote. I said that the Pater Noster (Our Father) is printed in Latin on the back of the ticket used for admission into the Holy Father’s General Audiences, not the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Incidentally, the Latin texts for the Pater Noster also appears in the worship aid booklets that are distributed at each Papal Mass. Although I have never been to one, I own the booklets from Pope Benedict’s Installation Mass and several others. In fact, most of what is used in Latin is found in these little books.

 

[KathleenElsie]

The NO is already available in Latin.

Not in the three Diocese within driving distance from our home.

 

[pnewton]

Consider this thread preparation, catechesis, advance "warning… Dispelling rumors, in some cases.

Julianna,

Don’t worry. This whole thread is based on rumor, anyway. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”

If things change down the line, you won’t be alone and God will be with you. If the Holy Spirit leads this way, then it is our faith that will help all who struggle.