Praying in Latin

[OraLabora]

So after 554 posts, is anybody who didn’t think it was necessary to pray in Latin start praying in Latin, and did anybody who thought praying in Latin was of the utmost importance try praying in the mother tongue?

Somehow I don’t think so. Reading the arguments on the last page makes me realize that we’re just spinning our wheels and people are churning arguments for the fun of churning arguments.

It’s an un-winnable debate.

 

[Baelor]

What someone individually thinks is not the point. It’s about what God thinks and the way God actually desires to be worshiped. There is an objective reality based on Scripture, Church teaching, and tradition, and that is the message that we have an obligation to communicate.

I am not denying that. I am simply stating that you cannot apply a mindset to another person without justification, as you have done.

We were talking about the phrase “casual faith,” which you yourself actually coined.

I do not remember that; please let me know where I “coined” it.

They have done studies in schools. When kids normally wear a formal uniform, they perform better and take their studies more seriously because they are dressed more seriously.

LOLOLOL. Google has yielded the following:

19actionnews.com/Global/story.asp?s=4356460

gate.net/~rwms/UniformBrunRock.html

freakonomics.com/2011/09/01/study-shows-school-uniforms-improve-attendance-but-not-grades/

Please try again.

See how these kids act, however, when you let them wear jeans and t-shirts. I know. I was one of those kids and I saw these things happen!

Me too. I went to the best private school in my state, sending over 20% of students to Ivy Leagues and dominated every academic competition in the state. Our average SAT score was hundreds of points above the average of every other school.

Students showed up to class in pajamas.

 

[una_fides]

I am not denying that. I am simply stating that you cannot apply a mindset to another person without justification, as you have done.

I thought I was pretty clear that I was not applying this to anyone as an individual. I think you possibly misunderstood what I wrote.

Google has yielded the following:

19actionnews.com/Global/story.asp?s=4356460

gate.net/~rwms/UniformBrunRock.html

freakonomics.com/2011/09/01/study-shows-school-uniforms-improve-attendance-but-not-grades/

Please try again.

For every study there is a counter study. I could easily post many other studies, but I really don’t think we are going to get anywhere. If you read just the first article that you posted in opposition to uniforms, it states that the uniform policy effectively “improved graduation, behavior, and attendance rates.” Academic arguments aside, I think you have to concede at this point that how you dress effects how you act. It determines your behavior. It determines your approach. It doesn’t automatically infuse an increase of knowledge, but it does certainly set the mood. School dress is also not as dramatic a change as I had suggested either. Suit and tie vs jeans and flip flops. You dress up for formal special occasions. There is a social connection there. I explained these things to an intellectual gentleman who happened to live on a mountain and had always dressed casually for mass. He now dresses up and understands why. To me, it really makes sense if you think about it and don’t have any serious hang ups against it. But we’re getting off topic.

You would agree that the vernacular tends to be more causal since that’s how people speak, and the Latin is more of an elevated language that sets the tone for the sacred right? You also would agree I hope that chant communicates and sets a certain reverential tone for Mass that folksy music just doesn’t do.

 

[Baelor]

I thought I was pretty clear that I was not applying this to anyone as an individual. I think you possibly misunderstood what I wrote.

I do not think so. You did so here:

A “causal faith” would generally consist of such things as people coming to mass in shorts and flip flops, walking up and then sticking out their hands to casually receive their God and then pop him into their mouth and chew as if it were common food without really giving much thought to it, having a social hour in the sanctuary both immediately before and after the mass… I could go on but hopefully you get the point.

You attempted to backtrack here:

My comments were not saying that all those people have a “causal faith” or however you tried to spin the web.

Your attempt was unsuccessful since your “generally” works only in one direction; there is no indication that someone can have a serious faith and come to Mass in flip-flops.

Here, you do the same thing:

The point is that–generally speaking–people take the mass much more casually–whether they realize it or not–as depicted by their dress and demeanor at Mass.

And so too here:

More of an overall approach, which can also be on a subconscious level. It’s also possible that someone has no knowledge of such standards, as I pointed out.

You are saying that these are general things, but then saying that they are never permissible (barring, one infers, extraordinary circumstances). How are we to interpret the statement other than at an individual level when, despite your protests, it applies necessarily to individuals by its very design?

For every study there is a counter study. I could easily post many other studies, but I really don’t think we are going to get anywhere.

That is probably because they do not exist. I encourage you to find those studies; I put in the broadest possible terms (“study school uniform”) and came up with only studies that disagreed with you.

If you read just the first article that you posted in opposition to uniforms, it states that the uniform policy effectively “improved graduation, behavior, and attendance rates.”

But NOT academic performance (“Academic performance was unchanged”) which was your explicit claim:
una fides:

When kids normally wear a formal uniform, they perform better and take their studies more seriously because they are dressed more seriously.

This is indeed tangential; your point, however, remains unproven.

I think you have to concede at this point that how you dress effects how you act. It determines your behavior. It determines your approach.

Why should I concede this? Furthermore, and more importantly, why should I concede that persons who dress casually at Mass do not take their faith seriously?

You would agree that the vernacular tends to be more causal since that’s how people speak, and the Latin is more of an elevated language that sets the tone for the sacred right? You also would agree I hope that chant communicates and sets a certain reverential tone for Mass that folksy music just doesn’t do.

Latin is not more elevated. Chant in any language sets a reverential tone for Mass that folksy music just doesn’t do, Gregorian chant refers to form, not content or the language thereof. I do not believe that Latin should be in the Mass because it is more reverent, nor do I believe that it is more elevated or more reverent.

My interest in seeing the language return is from a pragmatic perspective. If congregations benefited from it because they seek something more elevated and reverent and believed it to be such, then perhaps that would be a basis. But perception does not create reality.

 

[una_fides]

Baelor, you are spinning my words and arguments as if to try to win a debate and trying to make it sound like I said something I did not. If you are doing so intentionally, then it is dishonest. If accidentally, then I hope you would accept this as a final explanation and leave it at that especially since this is off topic and really another thread should be started if you wish to continue this discussion. If something I said gave you that misguided impression, then please understand what I wrote in light of the full context of statements.

Your attempt was unsuccessful since your “generally” works only in one direction; there is no indication that someone can have a serious faith and come to Mass in flip-flops.

Actually I’m pretty sure “generally” means generally not specifically last time I checked. If I say for example that generally speaking people dress nicely and who attend the Traditional Latin Mass tend to take their faith very seriously, that does not mean that everyone there necessarily does. There could be a middle schooler there whose parents force him to dress up and go, or perhaps someone older who goes solely because that’s what they have always done. On the flip side, someone in very causal attire could be attending just because they’ve always gone to mass that way, that was how they were raised, and that’s how everyone else around them dresses. Could it be argued that if they and everyone else around them dressed formally to attend the holy sacrifice that he would take the mass more seriously? I think you could say that it’s certainly a possibility, but obviously each case is different. My argument concerning speaking “generally” is that if you look at parishes where people dress formally to mass, the liturgy is typically also always done more reverently and the people generally speaking tend to take the mass more seriously.

You are saying that these are general things, but then saying that they are never permissible (barring, one infers, extraordinary circumstances). How are we to interpret the statement other than at an individual level when, despite your protests, it applies necessarily to individuals by its very design?

Actually I never said “they are never permissible.” Case and point as to you making up arguments and putting words in my mouth. In fact, they are “permissible” and in some cases are even encouraged by some novus ordo priests. Again “generally speaking” () (meaning more often then not) if you look at the priests who encourage people to “come as you are” to mass and sit in a bean bag and make out at the sign of peace, they are going to tend to be much more liberally minded and most often will have masses laden with liturgical abuses. They also typically are dissenters from the faith. This is really common sense stuff. Do you not realize this or are you just debating for the sake of debating at this point?

 

[Baelor]

On the flip side, someone in very causal attire could be attending just because they’ve always gone to mass that way, that was how they were raised, and that’s how everyone else around them dresses.

You are missing my point by adding in limiting circumstances.

In other words, if I were to ask you whether it is permissible for someone who attends a parish where most people dress nicely, the person dressed nicely to Mass growing up, and so forth, to dress casually, what would you say? We can even say that someone has explained to him why dressing formally is (according to the speaker) important. That is, I am removing the ignorance that you are assigning to the person.

In other words, is someone who is aware of both sides of the issue morally permitted to make either choice?

In fact, they are “permissible” and in some cases are even encouraged by some novus ordo priests.

That does not make them permissible, by your own statement:

What someone individually thinks is not the point. It’s about what God thinks and the way God actually desires to be worshiped. There is an objective reality based on Scripture, Church teaching, and tradition, and that is the message that we have an obligation to communicate.

Again “generally speaking” () (meaning more often then not) if you look at the priests who encourage people to “come as you are” to mass and sit in a bean bag and make out at the sign of peace, they are going to tend to be much more liberally minded and most often will have masses laden with liturgical abuses. They also typically are dissenters from the faith

I have not met any priests who encourage parishioners to sit in bean bags and to make out at the sign of peace, so I feel unqualified to answer the question.

If you were to ask me whether priests who focused on modesty but did not prescribe a level of formality and who encouraged parishioners to “come as they are” should be assumed to be liberal/dissenters, I would say no.

 

[una_fides]

That is probably because they do not exist. I encourage you to find those studies; I put in the broadest possible terms (“study school uniform”) and came up with only studies that disagreed with you.

Ah yes, google, the infallible source of all human knowledge. Sounds like you may have incidentally just clicked on some pages that had higher rankings in google’s system than some others. Again this is pointless, but here are some counters for you:
etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=osu1153354717
clothes2order.com/read_news/195/2/School_Uniforms_Help_Improve_Grades.html
lbusd.k12.ca.us/uniforms/article_9.cfm
ehow.com/list_6882055_advantages-school-uniforms-test-scores.html
telegraph.co.uk/education/6156861/School-uniforms-a-uniform-approach-to-improving-exam-results.html
christianschoolproducts.com/articles/2009-December/Feature-Articles/Why-School-Uniforms.htm (this one points out that the elementary grades didn’t experience much difference in academic performance, but middle school grades did, especially concerning, ironic enough, language.)



The problem is that any study that does come out in favor, the liberals who oppose school uniforms are just going to say that it had something to do with the teachers. But honestly the uniforms do not make children smarter in and of themselves. The kids are still the same kids with the same mental capacity just dressed up. What is most significant that studies from both sides tend to agree on is that uniforms do create a better atmosphere more conducive to learning as student’s behaviors are modified. They get in less trouble and their attendance levels increase. So again do you at least concede that clothing does affect their behavior?

This is indeed tangential; your point, however, remains unproven.

Actually my point was in fact proven. Dress does have an affect on behavior, and my main point was pertaining to how seriously people take the liturgy can be affected by their dress. Whether dress can affect actual grades is still debatable. Because children are still the same with the same academic capacities, implementing uniform policies in some cases could take years before they demonstrate academic changes and long term affects would also have to be studied.

Why should I concede this?

Because the same studies you provided agreed that clothing affects behavior and overall approach. Regardless of whether you agree that it can increase academic performance, you really need to just be honest here.

Furthermore, and more importantly, why should I concede that persons who dress casually at Mass do not take their faith seriously?

??? That’s not what I was asking you to concede, but hopefully you can see the connection at least between dress and behavior.

 

[Baelor]

Sounds like you may have incidentally just clicked on some pages that had higher rankings in google’s system than some others.

It should not matter if the evidence were actually conclusive, which it is clearly not. Thanks for the links; only two of them were actual scientific studies, although they did disagree with me – case is still open, it seems.

So again do you at least concede that clothing does affect their behavior?

No. What I wear has nothing to do with what I am feeling at the time. Whether I wear a polo shirt or a T-Shirt to class does not affect my performance. When I can wear nice clothes to Mass, I do. But my attention and participation is not affected by my clothing.

Actually my point was in fact proven. Dress does have an affect on behavior, and my main point was pertaining to how seriously people take the liturgy can be affected by their dress.

Your point was that academic performance is affected by dress; that is unproven.

Because the same studies you provided agreed that clothing affects behavior and overall approach. Regardless of whether you agree that it can increase academic performance, you really need to just be honest here.

Are you changing your statement from what it was to something else? If you are stating that clothing can affect behavior in certain ways and certain instances, then yes, I agree. I am wary of agreeing to something as broad as “clothing affects behavior” because that could be applied to any number of absurd situations.

To bring this back to the actual topic (which isn’t even the OP), does dress make people more reverent at Mass? I do not see the cause; I see the correlation. Dressing unfaithful Catholics up will not make them believe.

 

[una_fides]

It should not matter if the evidence were actually conclusive, which it is clearly not. Thanks for the links; only two of them were actual scientific studies, although they did disagree with me – case is still open, it seems.
…
Your point was that academic performance is affected by dress; that is unproven.

That point is debatable. Yes. But what is proven is how clothing can affect behavior, whether you are aware of it or not. Or perhaps you could argue that for your personally it is different, but I don’t see that as a good approach. If you were the only one dressed in shorts and flip flops at mass and if everyone else was dressed in a suite and tie, would your dress affect how you felt? In addition, are you telling me that you don’t have any different feeling or sense whatsoever when you are dressed in a nice suit, perhaps feeling more professional whereas when you are wearing sandals you feel more relaxed since you are in beach attire? I think pretty much anyone would admit to this unless you don’t “feel” anything? Ask people at work or some friends what they think about dress and get their opinion with that example.

To bring this back to the actual topic (which isn’t even the OP), does dress make people more reverent at Mass? I do not see the cause; I see the correlation. Dressing unfaithful Catholics up will not make them believe.

Good point. But dress is interconnected with so many other things as is the language of the liturgy. While a specific unfaithful Catholic is not suddenly going to become a faithful one if he dresses up one Sunday, if the overall culture at the liturgy is one that takes it very seriously, as did the saints throughout history, then we are in a better position to create more saints through the overall culture, and dress is a part of this overall reform and approach. In addition, that unfaithful Catholic you described had to be formed that way somehow right? Whether through heretical teachings, a generally lax approach to the faith, or perhaps–as is often the case–he learned by observation and imitation as a good chunk of the general population does. If people observe others taking the faith very seriously, they are more inclined to do the same. This is a sociological fact of behavioral adaptation. In some cases, faith can follow behavior, and in many cases, faith is contagious.

I think it’s clear that clothing and appearance can affect how someone approaches a particular situation. Dress can communicate to yourself and others how seriously you are taking a given situation or perhaps your life in general (if you don’t wash your clothes for example). It can also communicate social status, etc, but the point it that it communicates. Language also obviously is able to communicate. What is the affect of having a sacred language being used in worship? Or to pose a question to help foster discussion and tie this all back in to the OP: **Does Latin foster a sense of reverence and mystery in the liturgy? **

 

[ConstantineTG]

No personal bias here. I was merely repeating things you had said. You said you are an “Orthodox Catholic Christian” and that you are skeptical as to the intentions of popes at the Council of Trent, and that you think that the Novus Ordo in the US is “bland,” and yet you were also vehemently defending Vatican II innovations. I simply pointed out that when trying to piece together your theological outlook, these inconsistencies seemed quite odd to say the least. Please read your own posts: here, here, here, here and here.

There is nothing inconsistent with what I said. In fact, it is kind of tiring to keep saying the same thing over and over again and yet be interpreted some different way. I you don’t understand what I’m saying, that is okay.

Actually I was just repeating what the pope taught about ad orientem worship vs versus populum. Again for someone who identifies himself as an eastern Catholic or Orthodox Catholic Christian I find it puzzling why you would be defending the priest facing the people. Can you imagine how the Orthodox Christians would react if one day you they tore down the iconostasis and threw it away and moved a table altar down in front of the people and had the priest face them and in the process also changed all the prayers around systematically removing their deepest theological content. A little disturbed possibly? I’d hope so at least.

Have you seen our parishes? Half of them have no iconostasis. I served at a Patriarchal Divine Liturgy in a huge parish with no iconostas. People aren’t exactly up in arms about it. I’d prefer there to be one, but nothing much I can do if it doesn’t. If I don’t have the money to buy an iconostas for them, better for me to shut up.

Every one. Do you read them? Perhaps you could cite something you said rather than just say this, which is really a non-answer to be honest.

Sure doesn’t seem that way. It seems you read one sentence and then make a generalization off of it. Your responses tells me that you didn’t read through what I put an effort in to type, it is frustrating on my end to take the time to explain and have someone come back and doesn’t even show that they read what you posted. Sorry, I’m not trying to be mean here or anything, but from how you respond to my posts this is what I get and what I feel about it.

 

[una_fides]

Latin is not more elevated. Chant in any language sets a reverential tone for Mass that folksy music just doesn’t do, Gregorian chant refers to form, not content or the language thereof. I do not believe that Latin should be in the Mass because it is more reverent, nor do I believe that it is more elevated or more reverent.

My interest in seeing the language return is from a pragmatic perspective. If congregations benefited from it because they seek something more elevated and reverent and believed it to be such, then perhaps that would be a basis. But perception does not create reality.

My personal interest in Latin is more spiritual and out of a devotion to be faithful to the Church, united in a special way with the pope and saints throughout history, to help facilitate deeper meditation (in my experience), to be more Christ-like (since Jesus prayed in a non-vernacular sacred language), and of course there is always the incentive to infuriate the devil. (From what I’ve seen on here so far it seems some people love to hear that last one most of all.) Those are at least my reasons for using it in my own private devotions, some of which also apply to the liturgy. I agree that it would have pragmatic benefits as well. The Latin language both has a perception and has an inborn heritage to it that ties it both with the Roman Church and even with the holy Cross itself. It has a certain mystical connotation that all seem to perceive at least on some level, some more than others.

 

[una_fides]

There is nothing inconsistent with what I said. In fact, it is kind of tiring to keep saying the same thing over and over again and yet be interpreted some different way. I you don’t understand what I’m saying, that is okay.
…
Sure doesn’t seem that way. It seems you read one sentence and then make a generalization off of it. Your responses tells me that you didn’t read through what I put an effort in to type, it is frustrating on my end to take the time to explain and have someone come back and doesn’t even show that they read what you posted. Sorry, I’m not trying to be mean here or anything, but from how you respond to my posts this is what I get and what I feel about it.

Funny I’ve felt the same way in our discussions and many times on this thread. It’s as if at times we are speaking another language. (I know, lame joke but couldn’t resist the opportunity.)

 

[Baelor]

If you were the only one dressed in shorts and flip flops at mass and if everyone else was dressed in a suite and tie, would your dress affect how you felt?

No, because I care about what I know is right, not what other people think. If I felt that they deserved to feel respected and that I was doing something disrespectful, I would alter that behavior. For that reason, I would wear nice clothes to someone’s house. But the Mass is about our worship of God, not our judgment of the clothing choices of others.

In addition, are you telling me that you don’t have any different feeling or sense whatsoever when you are dressed in a nice suit, perhaps feeling more professional whereas when you are wearing sandals you feel more relaxed since you are in beach attire? I think pretty much anyone would admit to this unless you don’t “feel” anything?

What difference does it make? Does my intellect, however insignificant, change? Am I a nicer person? You are correct, though, I do feel something: hot! I cannot bear to wear long sleeves, and certainly not to wear a jacket over a shirt.

While a specific unfaithful Catholic is not suddenly going to become a faithful one if he dresses up one Sunday, if the overall culture at the liturgy is one that takes it very seriously, as did the saints throughout history, then we are in a better position to create more saints through the overall culture, and dress is a part of this overall reform and approach.

That should not be the reason. Either something is a moral imperative, or it is not. There must be a theological argument if we are considering dress a moral requirement, even if that argument applies to a pragmatic situation. Furthermore, dress does not change theology. We should focus on getting people on the same page theologically and then worry about dress code if the situation does not address itself automatically.

In addition, that unfaithful Catholic you described had to be formed that way somehow right? Whether through heretical teachings, a generally lax approach to the faith, or perhaps–as is often the case–he learned by observation and imitation as a good chunk of the general population does.

Again, those are all extenuating circumstances that I do not wish to discuss.

My question is simple: Is a person who was not necessarily formed in that way morally permitted to choose the path of casual clothing? Your diction, e.g. “heretical,” “lax,” etc. suggests that the answer is no, and yet you claim that your statement is “general.”

Let us know settle what “general” means, and whether you are judging individuals or not. That will happen when you answer my question.

If people observe others taking the faith very seriously, they are more inclined to do the same. This is a sociological fact of behavioral adaptation. In some cases, faith can follow behavior, and in many cases, faith is contagious.

**Does Latin foster a sense of reverence and mystery in the liturgy? **

Does the language inherently do that? No. Does it circumstantially do that? I am not qualified to answer that question, so perhaps.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Hmmmm, a standard rejoinder, but one worth making anyway, I think:

I wonder if people would go to a job interview dressed the same way they attend the King Of Kings and Lord of Lords in his holy temple?

For me, it’s all about symbolism. It’s a ritual. Do it casual, making a minimal effort: OK, that cues people it’s not so important.

It’s basic stagecraft, if nothing else.

Ha, do a ‘coffee table Mass’, let the kids sit 'round the altar, play dull hymns on a guitar and then people wonder where the respect has gone? C’mon!

 

[Melchior_1]

Ha, do a ‘coffee table Mass’, let the kids sit 'round the altar, play dull hymns on a guitar and then people wonder where the respect has gone? C’mon!

Enough is enough, Roger. You’ve made several posts in several threads basically saying that every Ordinary Form Mass is either “casual”, “disrespectful”, or some other item. The flippant and blithe comments makes you come across in a certain fashion. You pass off quotes like the above as if they are the norm, that every Mass is like that.

You like the EF more, and feel that it suits your spirituality better? That’s fine, no one will take umbrage with this. But spending your days on a message board making grand generalizations about the same Form that the Pope and millions of others celebrate reverently is hardly what I would consider constructive and conducive to getting your points across.

 

[Melchior_1]

That’s not what I was asking you to concede, but hopefully you can see the connection at least between dress and behavior.

Yeah, people who dress dirt poor probably don’t have the same faith as others, right?

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

But spending your days on a message board making grand generalizations about the same Form that the Pope and millions of others celebrate reverently is hardly what I would consider constructive and conducive to getting your points across.

What I mentioned was a caricature, but such things have happened. You can’t at once introduce friendly, community-oriented elements into a mystical rite, like letting laity in civilian dress into the holy area, and still expect the same respect for what you’re doing.

You want a People’s Mass, said in the local language, with sentimental hymns and banter from the puplit? You can have that. But you can’t then expect the same response that a rite, which looks like an exclusive, solemn sacrifice and which is is being said in a mysterious language, accompanied by chanting, will get.

Even Hollywood gets this!

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Enough is enough, Roger. You’ve made several posts in several threads basically saying that every Ordinary Form Mass is either “casual”, “disrespectful”, or some other item. The flippant and blithe comments makes you come across in a certain fashion. You pass off quotes like the above as if they are the norm, that every Mass is like that.

And you are exaggerating my position, something that’s quite common on here. Show me where I said the underlined, above.

 

[Melchior_1]

What I mentioned was a caricature, but such things have happened. You can’t at once introduce friendly, community-oriented elements into a mystical rite, like letting laity in civilian dress into the holy area, and still expect the same respect for what you’re doing.

You want a People’s Mass, said in the local language, with sentimental hymns and banter from the puplit? You can have that. But you can’t then expect the same response that a rite, which looks like an exclusive, solemn sacrifice and which is is being said in a mysterious language, accompanied by chanting, will get.

Even Hollywood gets this!

You and others have made some caricatures a few times now, it’s pretty tiresome.

You know what I want? MASS. I don’t care if it’s in a church, in a house, on a boat, in an outhouse, on a street car, being said on a flatbed truck, it doesn’t matter. It’s Mass. The externals of Mass and the externals of other people don’t impact me because I focus on the task at hand; namely the sacrifice of Christ Jesus on the alter. If something goes as it shouldn’t, I’m not going to get too worked up about it.

And you are exaggerating my position, something that’s quite common on here. Show me where I said the underlined, above.

At the very least there’s no less exaggerating on my part than yours, no? Did you make the exact quotes? Your “caricature” qualifies, so does your statements that V.P. makes things like a performance (it doesn’t).

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Even Hollywood gets this!

Yes, Hollywood somehow manages to consistently portray reverent Masses celebrated using the OF and, less frequently these days, the EF.