Praying in Latin?

[LilyM]

As someone said, he was joking. Nobody has ever believed that God only understands Latin.

But remember, you can NOT say that there is no point in ever having Latin in the Mass, or it is no longer appropriate. The Canon I quoted is not something which only applies to the time, of Trent, it is an irrevocable Dogma.

What, like the Tridentine Form of the Mass itself is also an irrevocable dogma? (it is mandated in similar terms) Popes cannot bind future Popes or future faithful on matters of discipline. The language of the liturgy is a matter of discipline. Case closed, or it should be.

 

[Resurrexit]

What, like the Tridentine Form of the Mass itself is also an irrevocable dogma? (it is mandated in similar terms) Popes cannot bind future Popes or future faithful on matters of discipline. The language of the liturgy is a matter of discipline. Case closed, or it should be.

The TLM was, yes, a discipline, and it was possible to change that. This is not about rites, it is about the language of the Mass.

However, it is NOT just a discipline when Trent makes the irrevocable and solemn anathema statement against people who say that the Mass should only be in the local language:

CANON IX.–If any one saith…that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only…let him be anathema.

Deo gratias!

 

[LilyM]

The TLM was, yes, a discipline, and it was possible to change that. This is not about rites, it is about the language of the Mass.

However, it is NOT just a discipline when Trent makes the irrevocable and solemn anathema statement against people who say that the Mass should only be in the local language:

CANON IX.–If any one saith…that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only…let him be anathema.

Deo gratias!

What about Quo Primum, which purported to set the entire form of the Mass in perpetuity on the pain of the wrath of Almighty God and of Peter and Paul?

Clearly, the mere fact that a Papal or Consiliar pronouncement purports to be dogmatic or infallible doesn’t make it so. Certainly not in regards to future Popes or future faithful. It must be on a topic which is susceptible of infallible definition.

The language of the Mass is as unfit a subject for infallible pronouncement as most any other aspect of the form of the Mass. The only other detail of the Mass mentioned by Trent is the Canon (merely that there has to be one - and that it may be said inaudibly).

 

[Resurrexit]

What about Quo Primum, which purported to set the entire form of the Mass in perpetuity on the pain of the wrath of Almighty God and of Peter and Paul?

That was not a solemn irrevocable infallible definition, it did not claim to be, and anyone who says so is a fool.

Clearly, the mere fact that a Papal or Consiliar pronouncement purports to be dogmatic or infallible doesn’t make it so. Certainly not in regards to future Popes or future faithful. It must be on a topic which is susceptible of infallible definition.

The language of the Mass is as unfit a subject for infallible pronouncement as most any other aspect of the form of the Mass. The only other detail of the Mass mentioned by Trent is the Canon (merely that there has to be one - and that it may be said inaudibly).

So… are we to conclude that the Fathers of Trent did not know what makes a valid anathema statement?

Trent said lots of things about the Mass, and these are the infallible canons:

CANON I.–If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

CANON II.–If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.

CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a [Page 159] bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.–If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.

CANON V.–If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.–If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.–If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.--If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

None of these can ever be changed. If someone disagrees, they are anathema.

You can certainly say that it is permissible to celebrate Mass in the vernacular, and indeed it is.

But, if anyone were to say, including bishops, that we should NEVER celebrate Mass in Latin anymore, but only the local language, they are heretics.

 

[mommyof4]

Nope - don’t know it.

 

[LilyM]

That was not a solemn irrevocable infallible definition, it did not claim to be, and anyone who says so is a fool.

It invokes the wrath of Almighty God (basically damnation) and of Peter and Paul on anyone who disagrees with it - what intent is expressed by those words if not pretty much an anathema? And it makes repeated reference to ‘now and forever’ and ‘in perpetuity’. What intent there if not to make the pronouncement irrevocable?

Even if my reading of this is misguided, I’m not a fool and don’t appreciate being called one.

So… are we to conclude that the Fathers of Trent did not know what makes a valid anathema statement?

Well the dogma of infallibility was 300-some years away from being formally promulgated, so it’s entirely possible that they didn’t completely understand the circumstances in which it could be validly exercised.

Just like Sts Bernard of Clairvaux, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas were mistaken when they disagreed with the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Let me briefly mention Gallileo’s case - the church attempted to mandate infallibly on the issue of heliocentrism (by declaring it heresy) - a scientific theory which had nothing to do with faith and morals. They were wrong to do so, but they attempted it nonetheless. As Popes from Benedict XVI down to John Paul II freely admitted.

Trent said lots of things about the Mass, and these are the infallible canons:

None of these can ever be changed. If someone disagrees, they are anathema.

You can certainly say that it is permissible to celebrate Mass in the vernacular, and indeed it is.

But, if anyone were to say, including bishops, that we should NEVER celebrate Mass in Latin anymore, but only the local language, they are heretics.

By far the majority of those are making statements about the NATURE of the Mass (reasserting that it is a true sacrifice and suchlike) not mandating a particular form or format - apart as I said from the requirement that there be a Canon, and saying a Mass is valid even if only the priest receives Communion. And the language thing.

Anyways, getting back to the issue of language - the OP said nothing about the prayers of the Mass in particular, just prayer in general. So we both have sidetracked the thread a little, for which I apologise.

 

[Resurrexit]

It invokes the wrath of Almighty God (basically damnation) and of Peter and Paul on anyone who disagrees with it - what intent is expressed by those words if not pretty much an anathema? And it makes repeated reference to ‘now and forever’ and ‘in perpetuity’. What intent there if not to make the pronouncement irrevocable?

The intention of the document is clear that the Traditional Latin Mass is to be said forever. However, it was not an ex-cathedra statement, and neither it did not say something like ‘I hereby declare, promulgate, define that the TLM is to be said forever’, nor ‘let him be anathema.’ This is what makes an infallible statement. And as an aside point, the TLM has never been abrogated anyway.

Even if my reading of this is misguided, I’m not a fool and don’t appreciate being called one.

Sorry, my intention was not to call you a fool. But the document never claimed infallibility, and those who say so (traditionalists included), do not understand it.

By far the majority of those are making statements about the NATURE of the Mass (reasserting that it is a true sacrifice and suchlike) not mandating a particular form or format - apart as I said from the requirement that there be a Canon, and saying a Mass is valid even if only the priest receives Communion. And the language thing.

In what way is the language of the Mass unimportant? Surely language effects the very nature of the sacrifice? Why, place what is allegedly a discipline amongst all these other anathemas on faith and morals? What other supposedly invalid anathema statements of the church are there, because they are not on faith and morals? You mention Galileo, but I’m pretty sure it was never defined (although some people may have been pressing for it).

Anyways, getting back to the issue of language - the OP said nothing about the prayers of the Mass in particular, just prayer in general. So we both have sidetracked the thread a little, for which I apologise.

But my point is, it’s heresy to say that Latin never has any place anymore in the Mass. Latin is traditional, and traditions are never irrelevant.

 

[WBB]

I will pray the Hours in Latin at times, and even when I pray the Hours in English, I will usually recite the opening verse (Deus in adiutorium meum intende), the Benedictus, the Magnificat, and Pater Noster in Latin as well as the closing (Dominus nos benedicat, et ab omni malo defendat, et ad vitam perducat aeternam.) in Latin.

I used to worry about reciting and chanting in a language that I was not fluent in, but it came to me that when I am praying the Liturgy of the Hours, it is not merely my prayer, but my prayer in unison with the whole Church, and that whether I was completely aware of what I was chanting/reciting was not really the issue. Besides, my prayer book has a translation on the opposite page.

 

[AJV]

I will pray the Hours in Latin at times, and even when I pray the Hours in English, I will usually recite the opening verse (Deus in adiutorium meum intende), the Benedictus, the Magnificat, and Pater Noster in Latin as well as the closing (Dominus nos benedicat, et ab omni malo defendat, et ad vitam perducat aeternam.) in Latin.

I used to worry about reciting and chanting in a language that I was not fluent in, but it came to me that when I am praying the Liturgy of the Hours, it is not merely my prayer, but my prayer in unison with the whole Church, and that whether I was completely aware of what I was chanting/reciting was not really the issue. Besides, my prayer book has a translation on the opposite page.

Heh! I do that also. It became so habitual that when I was supposed to say it in English (group recitation) I actually forgot what the approved translation was, for a second. I also love singing the Marian antiphon at the end of Compline in Latin. Especially for the “Regina Caeli” it just flows better.

The Pater I learnt from EWTN when I used to watch its Masses over 11/2 tears back. One fine day I woke up and said “What ho! I can recite the Our Father in Latin” And that encouraged me to learn the rest of the prayers of the Mass, and the other popular ones, which I use occasionally.

I’m working on learning the 7 penitential psalms in Latin by heart-just after I’ve got them in English (almost there). The Miserere I think I could do Allegri’s version and ice having kept me awake to study twice daily for a whole month, during my exams last year.

 

[Resurrexit]

Whether I was completely aware of what I was chanting/reciting was not really the issue. Besides, my prayer book has a translation on the opposite page.

Hurrah! At least someone gets it.

I am reminded of what Saint Therese of Lisieux said about saying her breviary in Latin. She said words to the effect of ‘I don’t understand any Latin, but that all the more makes it God’s prayer, not just mine.’

 

[CatholicNerd]

Well the dogma of infallibility was 300-some years away from being formally promulgated, so it’s entirely possible that they didn’t completely understand the circumstances in which it could be validly exercised.

Just like Sts Bernard of Clairvaux, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas were mistaken when they disagreed with the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

While it’s true that the dogma of papal infallibility hadn’t yet been promulgated, Trent was (and as far as I can tell, remains–though I’ve heard some argue that it was merely a Western plenary council) an Ecumenical Council. Nobody can remove the anathemas, not even a Pope. Once the Pontiff ratifies the councils, the decrees of said council are binding upon all Christians.

 

[LilyM]

Surely language effects the very nature of the sacrifice?

If the language of the sacrifice truly matters (as if it’s not the ACT and re-presentation of the sacrifice that is central rather than the words) then surely THE language of the sacrifice should always have been the same language that Christ himself employed - Aramaic - and no other.

All other languages are translations, and inferior in that sense. Including the Greek that was the main liturgical language to begin with, the Latin which followed a few centuries later, the varied languages used by Eastern Catholics in their liturgies …

What other supposedly invalid anathema statements of the church are there, because they are not on faith and morals? You mention Galileo, but I’m pretty sure it was never defined (although some people may have been pressing for it).

After looking at this I’m afraid I have to eat humble pie and retract my statement about Galileo. It was the Congregation of the Index that condemned him and his work, not the Pope himself. still

Which kind of goes to my point about Quo Primum - surely the intent of a papal pronouncement matters, not its form or the fact that the word ‘anathema’ or some such appears in it or not.

And I still believe the intent with Quo Primum seems to be the same, for example, as that behind the Canons of Trent - to bind all the faithful for all time to a particular form of the Mass on pain of their immortal souls (what else does ‘the wrath of Almighty God’ mean I’d like to know!)

But my point is, it’s heresy to say that Latin never has any place anymore in the Mass. Latin is traditional, and traditions are never irrelevant.

And Joan of Arc was told that she was guilty of heresy too - it wasn’t true.

 

[LilyM]

While it’s true that the dogma of papal infallibility hadn’t yet been promulgated, Trent was (and as far as I can tell, remains–though I’ve heard some argue that it was merely a Western plenary council) an Ecumenical Council. Nobody can remove the anathemas, not even a Pope. Once the Pontiff ratifies the councils, the decrees of said council are binding upon all Christians.

Only binding on Catholics for starters. And binding for all time? Even if it has only to do with discipline and not faith and morals? So if a council tomorrow said ‘if any Catholic gets out of bed on the left side on Wednesdays let them be anathema’ then that’s binding on all future Popes and Catholics? And the mere fact that they purportedly found this to be a matter of faith and morals makes it so?

What’s the deal with the removal of the anathema on the Orthodox then? Was that not at least ratified or reaffirmed, if not first proclaimed, in Council?

 

[LilyM]

Only binding on Catholics for starters. And binding for all time? Even if it has only to do with discipline and not faith and morals? So if a council tomorrow said ‘if any Catholic gets out of bed on the left side on Wednesdays let them be anathema’ then that’s binding on all future Popes and Catholics? And the mere fact that they purportedly found this to be a matter of faith and morals makes it so?

What’s the deal with the removal of the anathema on the Orthodox then? Were the anathemas not ratified or reaffirmed, if not first proclaimed, by any of the post-schism Councils?

 

[LilyM]

What’s the deal with the removal of the anathema on the Orthodox then? Was that not at least ratified or reaffirmed, if not first proclaimed, in Council?

sorry - edit time has run out. I mean to enquire whether the initial anathemas against the Orthodox were, if not made in Council, at least restated by subsequent councils.

 

[AJV]

Only binding on Catholics for starters. And binding for all time? Even if it has only to do with discipline and not faith and morals? So if a council tomorrow said ‘if any Catholic gets out of bed on the left side on Wednesdays let them be anathema’ then that’s binding on all future Popes and Catholics? And the mere fact that they purportedly found this to be a matter of faith and morals makes it so?

What’s the deal with the removal of the anathema on the Orthodox then? Was that not at least ratified or reaffirmed, if not first proclaimed, in Council?

Regarding the anathema lifting you might want to hop into the EC forum and ask them about it. I remember reading a different take on that, and whether the anathemas as to their nature and whether they were actually lifted or not. You might also wish to read the CE article on dogmatic and disciplinary canons.

My personal opinion only and I’m happy to be corrected on it: but I would think the the idea of Trent is better expressed as not totally outlawing the vernacular (because then the Mass could not be ever celebrated in the vernacular and it has been) but rather against the ideas of the Protestants. Calvin, for example, held that there was no benefit whatsoever unless it was in the vernacular, which IS false, because even if one attends a Mass they do not understand they receive the graces from it. He even opposed saying Kyrie Eleison in the liturgy!

What I’m trying to say is: Is it NECESSARY for the Mass to be in the vernacular (“vernacular tongue ONLY”) ? No, and to say that would be s erroneous. May it be beneficial? Yes. Even Trent recognized that the Mass did have benefits in the vernacular but only judged it expedient not to have it so. After all, Pius X allowed Paleoslav on those grounds, and so did Pius XI for Estonian.

And could we return to the OP’s discussion and maybe start the discussion of Latin and understanding in another thread?

 

[valient_Lucy]

The only prayer I know in Latin is the Hail Mary, thanks to Schubert and Bach. I don’t know the Pater Noster. I would not be opposed to learning it, but my pronounciation would be dreadful, since I’ve never heard it spoken (except in the Godfather.)
All of my Latin has been learned through music. I am familiar with the Gloria, but I haven’t memorized it yet. And I know the Sanctus. I’m working on other songs that are prayers in Latin. But since I’ve never sung the Pater Noster, I couldn’t pray it in Latin.

I forgot. I also know the Angus Dei.

 

[mystified]

Looks as though I’m in the majority for a change: I voted “sometimes”.
Since I most often attend Mass in Spanish, it is easy to slip in and out of either tongue without thinking, but my Spanish-only friends give some strange looks.
Last week I attended a memorial service for a Lutheran friend in his church. When the pastor made the Sign of the Cross, I realized I was the only person there doing it too, but nobody seemed concerned, nor when I absentmindedly joined in with “Pater Noster”, et cétera, when they recited the Lord’s Prayer, and capped it with the doxology that Protestants always add, but said, “Tuyo es el reino, tuyo el poder y la gloria por siempre, Señor.” Good habits are hard to break, too.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Vernacular? Hmmm. OK, here’s something in the vernacular concurrent with the Latin of Rome. It should be familiar to all of us who speak English today:

Atta unsar þu in himinam,
weihnai namo þein.
qimai þiudinassus þeins.
wairþai wilja þeins,
swe in himina jah ana airþai.
hlaif unsarana þana sinteinan
gif uns himma daga.
jah aflet uns þatei skulans sijaima,
swaswe jah weis afletam
þaim skulam unsaraim.
jah ni briggais uns
in fraistubnjai,
ak lausei uns af þamma ubilin

Concurrent vernacular for English, German, Dutch and other Germanic languages around 300 or so AD. Or what about:

Fæder ure,
ðu ðe eart on heofenum,
si ðin nama gehalgod;
to-becume ðin rice;
geweorþe ðin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofenum.
Urne ge dæghwamlican hlaf syle us to-deag,
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgifaþ urum gyltendum,
ane ne gelæde ðu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfle.
Amen.

Vernacular for English in 900 AD.

Or:

Oure fadir þat art in heuenes halwid be þi name;
þi reume or kyngdom come to be.
Be þi wille don in herþe as it is doun in heuene.
yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred.
And foryeue to us oure dettis þat is oure synnys as we foryeuen to oure dettouris þat is to men þat han synned in us.
And lede us not into temptacion but delyuere us from euyl.

Middle English.

Vernacular folks for all of us English speakers. But the fact remains that during the Middle Ages, the lowliest peasant, serf, ceorl, yeoman whatever designation you choose could recite the Lord"s Prayer not in the vernacular, but in Latin. Latin may be a ritual language today but it is a unifying language. Forty-five years ago, any Catholic with any language could go to Mass anywhere in the world and participate. Can we say that today?

 

[Caesar]

Vernacular? Hmmm. OK, here’s something in the vernacular concurrent with the Latin of Rome. It should be familiar to all of us who speak English today:

Atta unsar þu in himinam,
weihnai namo þein.
qimai þiudinassus þeins.
wairþai wilja þeins,
swe in himina jah ana airþai.
hlaif unsarana þana sinteinan
gif uns himma daga.
jah aflet uns þatei skulans sijaima,
swaswe jah weis afletam
þaim skulam unsaraim.
jah ni briggais uns
in fraistubnjai,
ak lausei uns af þamma ubilin

Concurrent vernacular for English, German, Dutch and other Germanic languages around 300 or so AD. Or what about:

Fæder ure,
ðu ðe eart on heofenum,
si ðin nama gehalgod;
to-becume ðin rice;
geweorþe ðin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofenum.
Urne ge dæghwamlican hlaf syle us to-deag,
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgifaþ urum gyltendum,
ane ne gelæde ðu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfle.
Amen.

Vernacular for English in 900 AD.

Or:

Oure fadir þat art in heuenes halwid be þi name;
þi reume or kyngdom come to be.
Be þi wille don in herþe as it is doun in heuene.
yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred.
And foryeue to us oure dettis þat is oure synnys as we foryeuen to oure dettouris þat is to men þat han synned in us.
And lede us not into temptacion but delyuere us from euyl.

Middle English.

Very good

Interesting to see the evolution of the english language as well.

Vernacular folks for all of us English speakers. But the fact remains that during the Middle Ages, the lowliest peasant, serf, ceorl, yeoman whatever designation you choose could recite the Lord"s Prayer not in the vernacular, but in Latin. Latin may be a ritual language today but it is a unifying language. Forty-five years ago, any Catholic with any language could go to Mass anywhere in the world and participate. Can we say that today?

According to my religion textbook before the No came about the Church surpressed local customs and lanaguage and heritage.