Praying in Latin

[JReducation]

Latin is being used more frequently in the OF. I think that we have to follow the Vatican’s lead on this. Latin is not a matter of evangelization. It’s not Gospel, doctrine, morals or law. We have to be careful how we present it and how we prioritize. It is also important to remember that the Church does not want to impose Latin on the faithful. She wants it to be preserved voluntarily. I believe this is the issue right here.

There are many traditionalists that would like to see legislation to impose Latin on Roman Catholics and the Vatican is not about to impose to many things on Roman Catholics. It wants to work from the other side of things, to get Roman Catholics to see who they are, not what they have to do. When people can see who they are, they embrace what they have to do without enthusiasm.

Everyone may want to read what the Holy Father said this week on agiornamento. He speaks to this particular point and says that we’re not going to move in the direction of imposing and anathemas, unless it’s doctrinal. There are no compromises on faith.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[OraLabora]

Latin is being used more frequently in the OF. I think that we have to follow the Vatican’s lead on this. Latin is not a matter of evangelization. It’s not Gospel, doctrine, morals or law. We have to be careful how we present it and how we prioritize. It is also important to remember that the Church does not want to impose Latin on the faithful. She wants it to be preserved voluntarily. I believe this is the issue right here.

There are many traditionalists that would like to see legislation to impose Latin on Roman Catholics and the Vatican is not about to impose to many things on Roman Catholics. It wants to work from the other side of things, to get Roman Catholics to see who they are, not what they have to do. When people can see who they are, they embrace what they have to do without enthusiasm.

Everyone may want to read what the Holy Father said this week on agiornamento. He speaks to this particular point and says that we’re not going to move in the direction of imposing and anathemas, unless it’s doctrinal. There are no compromises on faith.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Oh I agree completely. I was being tongue-in-cheek about “evangelizing”. Being of a Benedictine tradition, our way of “evangelizing” is rather subtle… we just do it ourselves, and let nature, osmosis, or whatever, take its course. We don’t actively proselytize, whether on matters of faith, doctrine or music, but our door is open to anyone expressing an interest in us and what we do and stand for.

That’s essentially what our schola is doing with chant. We go around from parish to parish once a month from September to May or June, and we chant the propers and ordinary. We only go where we are welcome. Our choirmaster knows his way around the diocese pretty well (I actually live in the neighboring diocese) and knows much of its clergy, and if a parish is closed to having us (and there are some), he doesn’t press the matter and calls the next one. Our choirmaster is a Benedictine oblate himself (same abbey as the one I belong to), and certainly isn’t one to impose anything on anyone. Well, except that he’s very persistent for getting the chant right, but that’s another story and I think more than one monk on more than one occasion in more than one monastery has wanted to wring the choirmaster’s neck

If we are to preserve Latin, I think we do have to make the patrimony of the Church better known, but without forcing it on people. I can think of few better ways than well-executed Gregorian chant, live, in its liturgical context, when a parish or community is open to being exposed to it.

 

[JReducation]

Oh I agree completely. I was being tongue-in-cheek about “evangelizing”. Being of a Benedictine tradition, our way of “evangelizing” is rather subtle… we just do it ourselves, and let nature, osmosis, or whatever, take its course. We don’t actively proselytize, whether on matters of faith, doctrine or music, but our door is open to anyone expressing an interest in us and what we do and stand for.

That’s essentially what our schola is doing with chant. We go around from parish to parish once a month from September to May or June, and we chant the propers and ordinary. We only go where we are welcome. Our choirmaster knows his way around the diocese pretty well (I actually live in the neighboring diocese) and knows much of its clergy, and if a parish is closed to having us (and there are some), he doesn’t press the matter and calls the next one. Our choirmaster is a Benedictine oblate himself (same abbey as the one I belong to), and certainly isn’t one to impose anything on anyone. Well, except that he’s very persistent for getting the chant right, but that’s another story and I think more than one monk on more than one occasion in more than one monastery has wanted to wring the choirmaster’s neck

If we are to preserve Latin, I think we do have to make the patrimony of the Church better known, but without forcing it on people. I can think of few better ways than well-executed Gregorian chant, live, in its liturgical context, when a parish or community is open to being exposed to it.

We don’t proselytize either and our ministry is totally Gospel of Life. The example of Bl. John Paul was very clear. He taught. He did not proselytize.

I think with the liturgy, the same thing needs to happen. It’s very important for the Latin mass lovers to remember that even though the Latin language does not change, because it’s a dead language, the Latin Rite has change many times over the centuries and there are several Latin Rites. The Roman Rite is only one of them.

People forget that there are the Ambrosian, Mazorabic, Carmelite, Carhtusian and Dominican rites, all of which are Latin Rites. The Roman Rite was very diversified until the Council of Trent. Today, we revise the missal and put the former edition away. Back then, they simply created a new missal and used it concurrently with all of the others that were being used. As long as they contained the Canon, the rest was very fluid.

Today, we’re dealing with two forms of the Roman Rite. In those days, there were many forms. Our situation is much easier to deal with. I believe that slowly we will move to one form. It’s not going to be the Tridentine or the Pauline, but a hybrid of both. I believe that it will begin with the unification of the liturgical calendar. The new saints are going to be added to the 1962 missal and the seasons are going to be changed to concur with the seasons in the Pauline missal. What happens with the rubrics and the propers is anyone’s guess at this time.

Most people who like the OF have no problem with using some Latin at mass. Some like a little more and others a little less. What they want is to use Latin for those parts that everyone understands: Sanctus, Pater, Agnus Dei, etc. They like the Eucharistic prayers in the local language, because that’s much more difficult to understand in Latin. You have to follow along with a book. Current liturgical law says that the congregation should not be reading the Eucharistic prayer along with the presider. Even the concelebrants are not allowed to do that. They listen and in those parts where the concelebrant can chime in, he does. Right now there are only two such parts. If there are five priests, only three get to speak. There is a risk that the congregation would be sitting there saying the words along with the priest, if the man in the pew has to read them in his own language while the priest says them in Latin.

Those are just some details that the Congregation for Divine Worship has to work out. Rather than rush through it as we did during the 1960s and 70s, it’s better to keep revising the missals until it arrives. People are going to find this annoying. This may mean a change here and a change there every year. People found the changes in 2011 annoying. That’s life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[OraLabora]

We don’t proselytize either and our ministry is totally Gospel of Life. The example of Bl. John Paul was very clear. He taught. He did not proselytize.

I think with the liturgy, the same thing needs to happen. It’s very important for the Latin mass lovers to remember that even though the Latin language does not change, because it’s a dead language, the Latin Rite has change many times over the centuries and there are several Latin Rites. The Roman Rite is only one of them.

People forget that there are the Ambrosian, Mazorabic, Carmelite, Carhtusian and Dominican rites, all of which are Latin Rites. The Roman Rite was very diversified until the Council of Trent. Today, we revise the missal and put the former edition away. Back then, they simply created a new missal and used it concurrently with all of the others that were being used. As long as they contained the Canon, the rest was very fluid.

Today, we’re dealing with two forms of the Roman Rite. In those days, there were many forms. Our situation is much easier to deal with. I believe that slowly we will move to one form. It’s not going to be the Tridentine or the Pauline, but a hybrid of both. I believe that it will begin with the unification of the liturgical calendar. The new saints are going to be added to the 1962 missal and the seasons are going to be changed to concur with the seasons in the Pauline missal. What happens with the rubrics and the propers is anyone’s guess at this time.

Most people who like the OF have no problem with using some Latin at mass. Some like a little more and others a little less. What they want is to use Latin for those parts that everyone understands: Sanctus, Pater, Agnus Dei, etc. They like the Eucharistic prayers in the local language, because that’s much more difficult to understand in Latin. You have to follow along with a book. Current liturgical law says that the congregation should not be reading the Eucharistic prayer along with the presider. Even the concelebrants are not allowed to do that. They listen and in those parts where the concelebrant can chime in, he does. Right now there are only two such parts. If there are five priests, only three get to speak. There is a risk that the congregation would be sitting there saying the words along with the priest, if the man in the pew has to read them in his own language while the priest says them in Latin.

Those are just some details that the Congregation for Divine Worship has to work out. Rather than rush through it as we did during the 1960s and 70s, it’s better to keep revising the missals until it arrives. People are going to find this annoying. This may mean a change here and a change there every year. People found the changes in 2011 annoying. That’s life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I think our abbey has found a nice balance; it’s OF. They use Latin for the propers, Latin/Greek for the ordinary, and French (the local language) for everything else: prayers, readings, homily, and EP. Everything is chanted even the French, except on weekdays simpler tones are used for the French parts, and the Universal Prayer is spoken and not chanted.

Same theme for the Divine Office. Lauds and Vespers are in Latin except for the reading and the intercessions. The other hours have the hymn Latin and everything else in French except that at Compline the responsory and marian antiphon are in Latin.

 

[JReducation]

I think our abbey has found a nice balance; it’s OF. They use Latin for the propers, Latin/Greek for the ordinary, and French (the local language) for everything else: prayers, readings, homily, and EP. Everything is chanted even the French, except on weekdays simpler tones are used for the French parts, and the Universal Prayer is spoken and not chanted.

Same theme for the Divine Office. Lauds and Vespers are in Latin except for the reading and the intercessions. The other hours have the hymn Latin and everything else in French except that at Compline the responsory and marian antiphon are in Latin.

It sounds like what the Franciscans are doing for conventual masses, except that we do not use Gregorian chant. That’s an exception not a norm among Franciscans. But it has been an exception for 800 years. I don’t see this changing now.

He use Latin and the local language.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

It is also important to remember that the Church does not want to impose Latin on the faithful. She wants it to be preserved voluntarily. I believe this is the issue right here.

Br JR, the Church doesn’t have to impose Latin (or Greek or Hebrew, for that matter.) Exposure is usually enough. The corruption of modern languages over time should necessitate a “regression” to an ancient state and ancient language. Otherwise we’ll end up with more Protestant-like “denominations.”

Look at Shakespeare. Not an ancient language but translated into Polish or Chinese or Spanish (even in the most literal translations) it loses its nuances, careful wording, and poetry. Only in Shakespearean English does Shakespeare live. If someone in Poland wants to study Shakespeare, he will just have to learn enough of his era’s English. And he doesn’t necessarily have to be fluent in modern English.

 

[M-Dent]

(This news article reminded me of this thread.)

Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday issued the Motu Proprio Latina Lingua, which establishes the new Pontifical Academy for Latin. The Academy is meant to promote the knowledge and study of the Latin language and Latin literature, from classical times to the present day. “The Latin language has always been held in high regard by the Catholic Church and the Roman pontiffs,” writes Pope Benedict.

He pointed out Latin and Greek were used in the early Church, being the universal languages of the time, and since then the Church has made Latin “her own language.”
The Holy Father writes, “After the demise of the Roman Empire, the Church of Rome not only continued to make use of the Latin language, but also became in a way its guardian and promoter, both in theology and liturgy, and in formation and the transmission of knowledge.”

Pope Benedict said a good understanding of Latin is more necessary than ever in the Church, due to its importance in studying Theology, Liturgy, Patristics, and Canon Law.
He said a “superficial” knowledge of Latin can be detrimental to the philosophical and theological training of future priests.

Pope establishes new Pontifical Academy for Latin

 

[JReducation]

** “superficial” knowledge of Latin can be detrimental . . . "**

I totally concur with this statement. It’s unfortunate that the Holy Father referred to the formation of priests in this sentence. The fact is that most priests are not theologians or even students of theology. Most are students of Divinity or Ministry. A theologian and a philosopher is another animal and requires another level of formation.

If you’re going to be a priest, you can’t begin a degree in theology until you have completed a four-year master’s in divinity. Because it’s so long and expensive, most priests do not study advanced theology, which is where Latin and Greek would be used.

I did not use Latin or Greek until I reached the STL level and onward to the STD. During my M.Div, everything was in English and German.

But he is right in saying that theology and philosophy cannot be done with a high school knowledge of Latin. You must actually think in Latin, because your have to interpret, not translate. Translations can be very clunky, if they’re too literal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[una_fides]

** “superficial” knowledge of Latin can be detrimental . . . "**

I totally concur with this statement. It’s unfortunate that the Holy Father referred to the formation of priests in this sentence. …
But he is right in saying that theology and philosophy cannot be done with a high school knowledge of Latin.

I’m confused by your statement here. It sounds like you are saying you agree with the statement but then in the next sentence that you disagree. Could you explain?

The context of the statement you bolded is essential to its meaning. The pope did not say in general that a superficial knowledge of Latin can be detrimental. As you know, he was referring to the specific instance of priests and is advocating that they have a much more thorough understanding of the Latin so that they are able to use it in their studies and ministry.

I think it’s great the pope is emphasizing this need for more Latin study. But then again this necessity of a prime place given to the Latin language has been constantly taught by popes throughout the centuries and believe it or not most especially in modern times! I think they are clearly trying to tell us that something was lost on the ordinary parish level, and that recovering Latin will play a big part in helping fix what they have said is in serious need of repair and reform.

 

[JReducation]

I’m confused by your statement here. It sounds like you are saying you agree with the statement but then in the next sentence that you disagree. Could you explain?

The context of the statement you bolded is essential to its meaning. The pope did not say in general that a superficial knowledge of Latin can be detrimental. As you know, he was referring to the specific instance of priests and is advocating that they have a much more thorough understanding of the Latin so that they are able to use it in their studies and ministry. .

I agree with the Holy Father that superficial knowledge of Latin can be detrimental. Where I’m disagreeing is with the mention of priests.

The Holy Father is a diocesan priest. He has never lived or worked in a religious community. The idea that theology is studied by others who are not priests slips his mind.

Secondly, he lives in Europe not in America. In America, priests are not required to get degrees in theology. Most priests get degrees in Divinity. Divinity is a much more professional degree. It’s a very good degree, because it’s very hands on. It’s focus is on those areas that one is going to use in daily ministry.

Theology, on the other hand, is an academic degree. It is what the Holy Father has. Theology deals with concepts, systems, definitions, dogmas, and morals. However, it does not prepare the student to serve. I have a doctorate in theology. We never learned to do pastoral counseling. We had to take those courses on our own or not do pastoral counseling. We never did youth ministry or religious education, because we studied nothing about faith and catechesis. Catechesis is not taught in theology. You know very little about law. After 11 years of university studies, you come out with 2 years of law. Unless you study to be a Canon Lawyer, you fly by the seat of your pants.

People who study theology do so at the advanced level of education. Most parish priests do not get go for that level of education. It’s not required. Those who go for advanced levels in theology, where they would need ancient languages such as Latin and Greek, can be priests, brothers, sisters, and lay people.

To the simple man in the pew, the Holy Father’s statement excludes the many students of theology who are not priests and assumes that every priest is a student of theology. That is not the case. In Divinity you do take many theology courses. But after four years, you come out with a M. Div. not with an MA in theology.

After the M.Div. you can go on for more studies in theology. But most priests do not do so, because they want to get out there and work.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[una_fides]

I agree with the Holy Father that superficial knowledge of Latin can be detrimental. Where I’m disagreeing is with the mention of priests.

Yeah I have to agree with the pope on this one. The more priests know Latin the more they will use it, as popes have been advocating for quite some time now. If the holy father’s plan for the reform of the reform involves restoring Latin to the liturgy, as the Council required, then wouldn’t this statement make sense as helping move things in that direction?

For clarify’s sake, for whom exactly are you saying that a superficial knowledge of Latin could be detrimental?

 

[mangy_dog]

As a mangy dog,

I believe I understand the Holy Father’s intent, which has been the same ever since he ascended to the chair of Peter…[encourage the faithful to learn two or three prayers in Latin]

I knew back then where the Santo Papa was headed with this and so I learned Latin prayers from the mass group; the angel group; Rosary group and others.

Today I know over 20+ prayers in Latin. A priest could do the same thing and if that priest wants to, he can deepen his knowledge and understanding of Latin in Liturgy and sacred writings of the church fathers.

I apologize for the simplistic, mangy dog perspective. Mea culpa.

 

[una_fides]

As a mangy dog,

I believe I understand the Holy Father’s intent, which has been the same ever since he ascended to the chair of Peter…[encourage the faithful to learn two or three prayers in Latin]

I knew back then where the Santo Papa was headed with this and so I learned Latin prayers from the mass group; the angel group; Rosary group and others.

Today I know over 20+ prayers in Latin. A priest could do the same thing and if that priest wants to, he can deepen his knowledge and understanding of Latin in Liturgy and sacred writings of the church fathers.

I apologize for the simplistic, mangy dog perspective. Mea culpa.

I think for the existing older priests at least learning prayers in Latin is important, but obviously at an older age becoming more proficient in Latin if they never learned it in seminary is going to be quite a task indeed. Seminarians on the other hand should be thoroughly educated in Latin to help fix some of the failures of these past 50 years. Latin helps quell liturgical abuse, and as popes and countless others have lamented there have been “many many many abuses” since the council that need to be corrected. Restoring Latin to at least parts of the liturgy is one of several ways to do that, as it elevates the liturgy through the sense of sacred that it brings with it. Let’s think about this too, if the holy father is advocating an exemplary knowledge of Latin for priests what does that tell you of his vision for the Church and the significant part he desires Latin to play in the lives of priests in the future.

 

[majorem]

I agree with the Holy Father that superficial knowledge of Latin can be detrimental. Where I’m disagreeing is with the mention of priests.

The Holy Father is a diocesan priest. He has never lived or worked in a religious community. The idea that theology is studied by others who are not priests slips his mind.

Secondly, he lives in Europe not in America. In America, priests are not required to get degrees in theology. Most priests get degrees in Divinity. Divinity is a much more professional degree. It’s a very good degree, because it’s very hands on. It’s focus is on those areas that one is going to use in daily ministry.

Theology, on the other hand, is an academic degree. It is what the Holy Father has. Theology deals with concepts, systems, definitions, dogmas, and morals. However, it does not prepare the student to serve. I have a doctorate in theology. We never learned to do pastoral counseling. We had to take those courses on our own or not do pastoral counseling. We never did youth ministry or religious education, because we studied nothing about faith and catechesis. Catechesis is not taught in theology. You know very little about law. After 11 years of university studies, you come out with 2 years of law. Unless you study to be a Canon Lawyer, you fly by the seat of your pants.

People who study theology do so at the advanced level of education. Most parish priests do not get go for that level of education. It’s not required. Those who go for advanced levels in theology, where they would need ancient languages such as Latin and Greek, can be priests, brothers, sisters, and lay people.

To the simple man in the pew, the Holy Father’s statement excludes the many students of theology who are not priests and assumes that every priest is a student of theology. That is not the case. In Divinity you do take many theology courses. But after four years, you come out with a M. Div. not with an MA in theology.

After the M.Div. you can go on for more studies in theology. But most priests do not do so, because they want to get out there and work.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[majorem]

Good morning…I am new to the club ‘this wonderful site’ , but with all respect, arent’ we splitting proverbial hairs’ here…Was not his Holiness’ intent merely to stress the spiritual benefits of learning to pray in the beautiful ancient language…the language of the Church…I love the Latin Liturgy…and I pray in Latin…you points on specificity are totally appreciated…so…however, do you personally have feelings about this matter asside from the obvious technical disagreement with the reference to the Priesthood…? Have a Blessed Day

 

[mangy_dog]

I think for the existing older priests at least learning prayers in Latin is important, but obviously at an older age becoming more proficient in Latin if they never learned it in seminary is going to be quite a task indeed. Seminarians on the other hand should be thoroughly educated in Latin to help fix some of the failures of these past 50 years. Latin helps quell liturgical abuse, and as popes and countless others have lamented there have been “many many many abuses” since the council that need to be corrected. Restoring Latin to at least parts of the liturgy is one of several ways to do that, as it elevates the liturgy through the sense of sacred that it brings with it. Let’s think about this too, if the holy father is advocating an exemplary knowledge of Latin for priests what does that tell you of his vision for the Church and the significant part he desires Latin to play in the lives of priests in the future.

I agree,

And it doesn’t need to be this daunting task for some priests. Learning the basic prayers of the mass for example: Pater Noster; Agnus Dei; Kirie; Anima Christi (after Communion) and the Sancte Michael Archangele at the end of mass…should be no problem for a priest to learn.

Just doing, sometimes brings a spiritual disposition to doing more. If a mangy dog can learn Latin prayers so can a priest and everyone who will just follow the suggestions of the Holy Father.

Crux Sacra, in hoc signo vinces.

 

[awsiukiewicz]

Amen, I admit I memorized the prayers in Latin to serve Mass as an altar boy …I was 10 in 1962 when things changed and never got used to the new liturgy…today…I learned and pray my Rosary in Latin…and…I know what I am praying…it does bring a Sacred character to the prayers…I’ll never understand the reluctance from Priests…even older priests…PAX

 

[mangy_dog]

Ya darn skippy.

Reluctant or not, the return to Tradition is coming in one form or the other-for the sake of reverence and devotion and respect to the daily sacrifice of the mass.

The clouds are accumulating on the horizon and the winds are picking up. Long life and health to our Holy Pontiff, Pope Bendict XVI and to his succesor, Petrus Romanus.

 

[clem456]

Certainly anyone can learn Latin and it is beautiful to hear and sing and should have a place in the Mass.

But the Church in it’s wisdom recognizes that the printing press changes everything. And the telegraph, and the radio, and the tv, and the internet. They all change the way human beings interact with each other. The Church in it’s inspired wisdom recognizes this.

In a world where 300 cable channels and thousands of printed documents and thousands of preachers evangielize on you tube (this is the reality we live in)…

The Church must speak clearly and plainly to every person because there are many many messages available out there and we know most of them are off key. We want to convert folks to our position on difficult matters like birth control, homosexuality and abortion, yet if the source and summit of the faith is incomprehensible, where are we really going, and who are we leading? The Mass involves communication between God and man. Plain and direct communication is a good thing. The days when advancing in holiness depended on knowing Latin are long long gone, and thank God for it, for the sake of our salvation. That is not the fault of Latiin, just the reality we live in. My parents and their friends had absolutely no idea (literally no idea) what was really going on in the Mass parts until English came in. That kind of un-awareness just won’t cut it anymore. Ironically the vernacular Mass lead to a more authentic understanding of Catholic tradition.

Hopefully someday the Catholic Tradition will permeate the culture once again and we can begin to have a deeper appreciation of the language tradition. I don’t see it happening anytime soon.

 

[ProVobis]

My parents and their friends had absolutely no idea (literally no idea) what was really going on in the Mass parts until English came in. That kind of un-awareness just won’t cut it anymore. Ironically the vernacular Mass lead to a more authentic understanding of Catholic tradition.

The same can be said for reading Cliff’s Notes instead of Shakespeare.

They now have the third version to the consecration alone in English. Perhaps there are some things that can’t be understood better through use of a single translation?

As has been repeated often, there are various handmissals, each with their own translation to follow. If you don’t like the translation, you simply find another missal you like for its translations. A one-size-fits-all translation hasn’t been proven to make the Mass (or the Bible for that matter) understood any better, though the process of translation has had some positive effects IMO.