Praying in Latin

[RogerDeCourcy]

I never claimed that the current style of mass or church architecture was illegal or immoral. (Aside: if one, i.e. the Church, is making the laws and morals, how can they be?)

I am saying that the current stylings are unreasonable and foolish. They are a concession to mere fashion. They do not suit the purpose of Mass or religion: teaching the faith, bringing souls to penitence and propitiating God. They point more to the World.

The reality is priests inviting the laity up to the front of the church to wish them a happy birthday at the end of mass. Lay people (coeilacs) helping themselves from the chalice at the altar. Ad-libbed texts. Insipid hymns. Churches more as meeting rooms than temples. Mass as a performance directed towards the audience.

Currently, the fashion is for mass as a re-creation of the ‘Lord’s Banquet’ and the focus is on the Community. This leads to embarassing scenes in the Temple of the Most High. I do not think this is sufficient.

 

[JReducation]

I never claimed that the current style of mass or church architecture was illegal or immoral. (Aside: if one, i.e. the Church, is making the laws and morals, how can they be?)

I am saying that the current stylings are unreasonable and foolish. They are a concession to mere fashion. They do not suit the purpose of Mass or religion: teaching the faith, bringing souls to penitence and propitiating God. They point more to the World.

The reality is priests inviting the laity up to the front of the church to wish them a happy birthday at the end of mass. Lay people (coeilacs) helping themselves from the chalice at the altar. Ad-libbed texts. Insipid hymns. Churches more as meeting rooms than temples. Mass as a performance directed towards the audience.

Currently, the fashion is for mass as a re-creation of the ‘Lord’s Banquet’ and the focus is on the Community. This leads to embarassing scenes in the Temple of the Most High. I do not think this is sufficient.

That is a personal opinion, which is fine. One must remember that what one person may not find helpful, another does. Therefore, we must shy away from generalizations.

A simple example, as you’ve read my posts before. For 800 years, millions of men and women Franciscans did with whitewashed chapels, zero Gregorian chant, laudas in the vernacular instead of hymns in the Gregorian chant, no communion rails, no kneelers, a detached altar that allowed the community to stand around the altar, if the superior chose to do so. And in the provinces that came from the Assisi foundation, they had CITH since 1209.

To you, this may sound like an insipid or dry environment. To these men and women it was heaven on earth. In the environment, more men and women became saints than in any other religious family. More saints were named doctors of the Church than in any other religious family. In the midst of the vocation crisis of the latter part of the 20th century, the numbers went down to 1.7 million around the world. Multiply that by 800 years, that’s a lot of people for whom this very austere and informal worship space works. If you follow their good example, when they have to worship in a church or chapel that is adorned with all the trimmings or at a mass with the Gregorian Chant, incense,and pageantry that goes with the drama of the mass, they don’t complain about it. It’s not what they prefer. Otherwise, they would have become Dominicans, not Franciscans. But it is what it is and they appreciate the fact that this form also has served the spiritual needs of millions for a long time.

The key is simple. We have our preferences and that’s ok. We just have to make sure to allow others the preferences that the Church allows.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

Can we get back to praying in Latin? That was more interesting.

We know that classical languages are rarely taught in high schools and colleges. So, I find it interesting when I see someone using a Latin prayer book, without the English translation on the opposite page. I’m often tempted to ask, “Why are you saying prayers that you do not understand when they have been translated for your benefit?”

I’m not talking about the standard prayers that don’t require knowledge of Latin, such as the parts of the mass, Lord’s Prayer, Hail Mary, and Glory Be. Most people can figure those out, even if they have never opened a Latin book. They can figure them out by context. I’m talking about prayers like novenas and other less known prayers or even the Psalter.

One has to be very good at Latin to understand all 150 psalms or have an excellent memory, which is not me. Don’t ask me what Psalm 115 says. I have to look for it. I can read the Psalter because I had four years of Latin in the seminary. Otherwise, I’d be lost with a Latin breviary. It may as well be in Russian, which I don’t speak.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Br Jr, I thought about this a little bit this morning.

When we served back in the 50’s, we were totally immersed in the Latin. We didn’t have handmissals or the translations with us at the altar. Of course, today I have a better appreciation for the words used in the Mass, but as nice as that is, the only understanding we really need is that the prayers are pleasing to God. I’m not sure it’s that important that we have to dissect or analyze the meanings of each word or phrase in our tongues.

 

[Baelor]

When we served back in the 50’s, we were totally immersed in the Latin. We didn’t have handmissals or the translations with us at the altar. Of course, today I have a better appreciation for the words used in the Mass, but as nice as that is, the only understanding we really need is that the prayers are pleasing to God. I’m not sure it’s that important that we have to dissect or analyze the meanings of each word or phrase in our tongues.

I vehemently disagree. The idea that knowing what it is you are saying is entirely irrelevant is absurd. Are you saying that knowing the prayer confers no benefit whatsoever? How can you fully appreciate something that you cannot even understand?

Furthermore, Br. JR is actually spot-on. Now that vernacular is permitted, why would you voluntarily speak a language that you cannot understand? If Latin is important to you, learn the language. Speaking the prayers without understanding them seems a misdirected and even hollow gesture.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I’m not sure it’s that important that we have to dissect or analyze the meanings of each word or phrase in our tongues.

Perhaps we could also consider that the Holy Spirit specifically gifted the Apostles with the ability to speak in foreign tongues (xenoglossia, not to be confused with “speaking in [unknown] tongues”), in order to spread the Gospel.

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 2:4[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[ProVobis]

Are you saying that knowing the prayer confers no benefit whatsoever?

To be certain that it pleases God is benefit enough IMO.

 

[Baelor]

To be certain that it pleases God is benefit enough IMO.

How can you be certain that it pleases God, or in what way it does say, if you do not know what it means?

Furthermore, that does not answer my question, which was as follows:

Baelor:

Are you saying that knowing the prayer confers no benefit whatsoever?

It seems that your answer is “no.” Is that correct? You are indifferent toward knowing or not knowing what a prayer says?

 

[ProVobis]

Perhaps we could also consider that the Holy Spirit specifically gifted the Apostles with the ability to speak in foreign tongues (xenoglossia, not to be confused with “speaking in [unknown] tongues”), in order to spread the Gospel.

Then He also must have given the audience some understanding of (or desiring to understand) that Gospel as well. Or at least enough understanding to make the necessary conversion.

 

[ProVobis]

It seems that your answer is “no.” Is that correct?

Not correct.

Learning is a benefit as well, though unpleasant as it is at times.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Then He also must have given the audience some understanding of (or desiring to understand) that Gospel as well. Or at least enough understanding to make the necessary conversion.

Indeed, but that is Grace of a different sort.

 

[ProVobis]

How can you fully appreciate something that you cannot even understand?

Well, I don’t understand gravity or why the speed of light has to have a maximum, but I can appreciate every equation I’ve learned about them and where they apply.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

A simple example, as you’ve read my posts before. For 800 years, millions of men and women Franciscans did with whitewashed chapels, zero Gregorian chant, laudas in the vernacular instead of hymns in the Gregorian chant, no communion rails, no kneelers, a detached altar that allowed the community to stand around the altar, if the superior chose to do so. And in the provinces that came from the Assisi foundation, they had CITH since 1209.

Was this done at Sunday mass with the laity present i.e. in those churches which served dioceses? Were the laity allowed around the altar and to handle the host?

If they were, what spiritual purpose does it serve, in these times of increasing atheism and neo-paganism, to let unvested laity into the sanctuary and handle Christ Himself?

Re: Churches. My concern is that an opportunity to impress ignorant non-Catholics and Catholics alike is being lost for reasons of fashion. And maybe to impress God.

Stand back and fast-forward mentally through a suburban church’s Sunday mass from 1930 to 2000 and the trend is to strip out, dumb down and bland out; in the text, iconography, music and participation.

I doubt diocesan churches are trying to ape Franciscan spirituality by doing things like removing the high altar and letting ‘On Eagles Wings’ be played on acoustic guitar as Mass.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR MESSAGE

You had a very good discussion going on praying in Latin. Get back on track. I’m proud of the fact that at least one of our threads has reached such a high number. Let’s see if we can make it to the 1,000 mark.

 

[OraLabora]

Well I prayed Vespers in Latin tonight. Since I chant Lauds and Vespers in Gregorian chant what I like to do is chant the psalm in Latin, then in silence read the psalm in French (unless it is a psalm I know so well that I know what I’m praying, or the odd psalm that is easy to read in Latin). I do the readings and intercessions in French though (French is my mother tongue).

So in spite of what many of you might think I’m not against praying in Latin!

But I do it because I just happen to love Gregorian chant and now how. The prayer is just as effective in one’s native tongue.

 

[ProVobis]

Indeed, but that is Grace of a different sort.

Hence the term Amazing.

 

[JReducation]

Was this done at Sunday mass with the laity present i.e. in those churches which served dioceses? Were the laity allowed around the altar and to handle the host?

If they were, what spiritual purpose does it serve, in these times of increasing atheism and neo-paganism, to let unvested laity into the sanctuary and handle Christ Himself?

Re: Churches. My concern is that an opportunity to impress ignorant non-Catholics and Catholics alike is being lost for reasons of fashion. And maybe to impress God.

Stand back and fast-forward mentally through a suburban church’s Sunday mass from 1930 to 2000 and the trend is to strip out, dumb down and bland out; in the text, iconography, music and participation.

I doubt diocesan churches are trying to ape Franciscan spirituality by doing things like removing the high altar and letting ‘On Eagles Wings’ be played on acoustic guitar as Mass.

In short, if you attended mass at a friary, that’s what you got. If the friar was celebrating mass for a diocesan parish, he would use the Franciscan missal, never the Roman missal. You still didn’t get the Gregorian Chant and the many details that go into the typical Tridentine High Mass and the mass would be a dialogue mass. We have never allowed our priests to subvocalize.

Bishops don’t have a problem with this. This is the way that it has been done for centuries. For us, when Gregorian chant was permitted by Pope Paul VI around 1970, it was a novelty. Many houses tried it for a while. Today, very few continue to use it. We’re back to reciting the LOTH, because it’s part of our heritage. I believe that the only group that dos it on a daily basis may be the Franciscans of the Immaculate, but they don’t have to. That’s their choice.

If you watch mass at EWTN you will see remnants of the traditional Franciscan Form. There is no communion rail. There is no place for the server on the sanctuary. He is usually a friar. He sits with the other friars. If he’s a layman, it’s the same thing. The chant is very plain. The hymns are laudas, mostly translated into English.

I’m not sure what the issue is with vested or not vested. We have never believed that the sanctuary requires vestments. Normally, the only one who wears vestments if the friar who is presiding. The other friars walk around the sanctuary in our habits. But the habit is not a vestment. It’s how we dress, just as a plummer would wear a jumpsuit. This has never been a concern for Franciscans, Cistercians, Jesuits or Salesians. We’re not talking about small groups here.

The Salesians and Franciscans have a bigger census that many states in the USA.

The question goes back to the same thing. Not how the church is designed. That’s going to vary from one culture to another and from one generation to another. The question that I asked was why do people want to pray in Latin or any language, if they don’t understand what they’re saying and don’t have a translation side by side?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Baelor]

Well, I don’t understand gravity or why the speed of light has to have a maximum, but I can appreciate every equation I’ve learned about them and where they apply.

It does not quite translate (pun not intended). First, you can conceptually understand gravity through experience; you cannot understand what a prayer is saying if you do not know the language at all. Second, the point remains: if Latin is important to you, why do you not just learn the language? If it is important enough to be the language in which you pray, I would think that that would justify your learning it.

Re: Churches. My concern is that an opportunity to impress ignorant non-Catholics and Catholics alike is being lost for reasons of fashion. And maybe to impress God.

Catholicism does not seek to “impress” the ignorant or non-Catholics. It seeks to lead others to the Truth. Your argument would be better served by making a connection between the physical church and the ability of the laity to deepen their faith from it. The line of reasoning involving other denominations/religions is going nowhere.

 

[JReducation]

It does not quite translate (pun not intended). First, you can conceptually understand gravity through experience; you cannot understand what a prayer is saying if you do not know the language at all. Second, the point remains: if Latin is important to you, why do you not just learn the language? If it is important enough to be the language in which you pray, I would think that that would justify your learning it.

I would quote here St. Teresa of Avila who said that “prayer is a conversation between good friends.” She very deliberately wrote many prayers and hymns in Spanish so that her nuns could understand.

I would also cite St. Francis who said that “prayer must be said.” He’s foreshadowing what Teresa would say 300 years later. It’s a conversation or a dialogue. He created two offices for those brothers who did know speak Latin. One was the office of the Paters and the other the Office of the Passion. The Paters were easy, because everyone can say the Lord’s Prayer in Latin. The Office of the Passion, on the other hand, was in Italian. The Canticle of the Creatures was in Italian and his other prayers were in Italian or French, not because he did not know Latin. He wrote The Rule in Latin. He wrote his prayers in his languages, Italian and French. He was half Italian and half French. French was his first language.

We have other examples of the spiritual masters who insist on the dialogue. St. Catherine calls her conversations with the Divine, The Dialogue. This dialogue took place in her language, Provencal. She did not speak Latin. She didn’t even read until her late 20s or early 30s. But she knew what prayer was. It was an experience of God’s friendship and an intense dialogue with him.

Whatever language one uses is not the issue. The issue is the dialogue. Prayer is a a two-way form of communication. Even when we use scripted prayer such as novenas or the Rosary, it’s two-way. If we take time to listen, eventually we hear the thunder of God’s voice in the whisper of the night.

Catholicism does not seek to “impress” the ignorant or non-Catholics. It seeks to lead others to the Truth.

You got that right. Catholicism has already made enough of an impression on the world and not all of it good. Maybe it’s time that we take St. Francis’ advice more seriously. Let your walking be your talking. If when you preach men refuse to listen, be gracious and leave them alone. The Holy Spirit alone can soften hearts and open minds.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

If we take time to listen, eventually we hear the thunder of God’s voice in the whisper of the night.

The last time I heard this, I thought it was His wrath.

Maybe it’s because I only have this conceptual understanding of electricity.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

In short, if you attended mass at a friary, that’s what you got. If the friar was celebrating mass for a diocesan parish, he would use the Franciscan missal, never the Roman missal.

Errr … are you saying that the lay congregation were allowed to handle the host at masses at Franciscan friaries prior to the 60’s and that unvested laity were also allowed into the sanctuary?