Praying in Latin

[ProVobis]

Interesting - Reverence? Incense? Bells? Periods of silence? Communion at the rail? None of these have anything to do with language, and all can be found in plenty in Masses in English, Spanish, Japanese or Hindi. I know, because I have attended such Masses in different languages.

That’s an interesting point and I agree to some extent. But can’t it be also said that the tendency has been to remove a lot of visuals in the Mass (kneeling, genuflections, Epistle side, low-tones, Gospel side, bows, kisses, signs of cross, color and amount of vestments, etc.) leading to more dependence on the vernacular, micophones, diversity, versus populum, etc.? For centuries people attended Mass (and the Divine Liturgy, so I hear) and NEVER heard the canon of the Mass at all in any language. Yet they understood what was happening.

 

[TimothyH]

Actually if you research where the Tridentine Mass came from, it was just a solidifying in a uniform way the Roman Rite, which was essentially the same liturgy of Pope St Gregory the Great (mid 500s), though we know that it was used and can actually be traced back much earlier. (Sources available upon request.)

In addition, I would like to point out that at the Council of Florence, the Greek Church agreed to accept the primacy of Peter and the *Filioque *clause in the Creed. They also all chanted the Creed together in Latin as a sign of their unity, despite the fact that the Greeks were not required to add the clause to their Creed. Latin does unify the East and the West for special occasions when praying together under the authority of St Peter.

Let’s be fair.

Pope Benedict XVI has omitted the filioque at Masses celebrated with patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

It’s a two way street.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t try to intellectualize prayer to the point that we either exclude people, or make them feel somehow inferior due to their lack of ability to learn Latin.

The exclusion came with the all-English Mass excluding the Poles, Hispanics, etc. It wasn’t until the Church produced enough acceptable (though many inaccurate) translations that brought some of these people back to the faith, albeit in their own culture.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No, I think you finally understood me correctly. The laity have to pray the missal at the Latin Mass. Illicit additions to the Mass will be incomprehensible to most of us and so won’t sow seeds of heresy or confusion. I don’t see why you think this is a bad thing.

So one of your arguments for the use of Latin is that the majority of the laity do not know it and that only those fluent (which will be low) are the ones who could abuse it is a reason for using Latin?

You see as a plus the fact that the laity must read along in their missals?

http://www.deserttuners.com/forum/i...ers.com/forum/images/smilies/2-2-icon_doh.gif is all I can say to that.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’ve heard new priests mangle Latin badly, too but I didn’t have difficulty following because of poor pronunciation. I’ll bet slipping into Italian by mistake would mess me up, though.

I would have to ask, when does poor pronunciation become no longer saying the required words?

How much can be left out or “mispronounced” before we must logically state worrying about validity?

 

[Rich_C]

So one of your arguments for the use of Latin is that the majority of the laity do not know it and that only those fluent (which will be low) are the ones who could abuse it is a reason for using Latin?

You see as a plus the fact that the laity must read along in their missals?

http://www.deserttuners.com/forum/i...ers.com/forum/images/smilies/2-2-icon_doh.gif is all I can say to that.

I am simply acknowledging a benefit of the situation as it stands, namely that the language is almost immutable at this point and not easily subject to distortions. People can understand the prayers of the Mass through practice, but illicit (likely unorthodox) additions will be meaningless to us.

Your feelings on the matter don’t undercut my logical arguments at all, brother.

 

[Rich_C]

I would have to ask, when does poor pronunciation become no longer saying the required words?

How much can be left out or “mispronounced” before we must logically state worrying about validity?

I have never worried about this while listening to good, African priests butcher English-as-a-second-language at hundreds of OF Masses. Should I start worrying?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I am simply acknowledging a benefit of the situation as it stands, namely that the language is almost immutable at this point and not easily subject to distortions. People can understand the prayers of the Mass through practice, but illicit (likely unorthodox) additions will be meaningless to us.

I do not see any logic in using as one of the reasons to push for a language the fact that most people do not know that language.

Your feelings on the matter don’t undercut my logical arguments at all, brother.

Feel has nothing to do with it and I would kindly ask you to refrain from attempting to read my mind regardless of your use of underlines.

Might be time to make an addition to the list.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I have never worried about this while listening to good, African priests butcher English-as-a-second-language at hundreds of OF Masses. Should I start worrying?

Wouldn’t this be different though if the priest butchered a language you did not know so you would not know he was butchering it. The only thing you would know is the language written in your missal that you are reading along with to the unknown language.

 

[Rich_C]

IFeel has nothing to do with it and I would kindly ask you to refrain from attempting to read my mind.

Read your mind? I read your post.

Your counter-argument was:

WOW!

If you didn’t sincerely mean you felt shocked/surprised/horrified/etc you can hardly blame me for not knowing.

To know that, would have required me to read your mind.

 

[Melchior_1]

I am simply acknowledging a benefit of the situation as it stands, namely that the language is almost immutable at this point and not easily subject to distortions. People can understand the prayers of the Mass through practice, but illicit (likely unorthodox) additions will be meaningless to us.

Your feelings on the matter don’t undercut my logical arguments at all, brother.

We’re getting into some metaphysics now, as the “immutable-ness” of the language isn’t inherent to the language itself, but it exists in the minds of those who don’t know what is being said. You have already agreed that people can take liberties with the language, but it apparently matters less when a priest throws additional things into a Latin Mass (OF or EF) because most folks won’t understand what is being said.

Once the ignorance is overcome and people begin to understand Latin, then it becomes no different than the vernacular because that “shield” of not knowing is no longer there. What happens then?

 

[Rich_C]

Wouldn’t this be different though if the priest butchered a language you did not know so you would not know he was butchering it. The only thing you would know is the language written in your missal that you are reading along with to the unknown language.

The only difference is that I usually carry a missal to the EF and never bring on to the OF. If a priest butchered the Latin at the EF, I’d likely recognize it (assuming its audible, another topic) because I have my missal. If a priest butchers the English at the OF, I’d definitely recognize it but may or may not have a clue what he meant (for instance, if its a proper prayer I haven’t memorized). If I had a missal for both forms of the Mass, I think there would be no practical difference.

I don’t know. I guess I just usually trust my priests and don’t worry in these cases.

 

[Rich_C]

We’re getting into some metaphysics now, as the “immutable-ness” of the language isn’t inherent to the language itself, but it exists in the minds of those who don’t know what is being said. You have already agreed that people can take liberties with the language, but it apparently matters less when a priest throws additional things into a Latin Mass (OF or EF) because most folks won’t understand what is being said.

I don’t remember what metaphysics means but you’re overthinking this. Latin is no longer evolving like other languages. The meaning of words in Latin no longer change over time. This is due to historical circumstances, that’s all.

Once the ignorance is overcome and people begin to understand Latin, then it becomes no different than the vernacular because that “shield” of not knowing is no longer there. What happens then?

Latin has gone on being a liturgical language for Roman Catholics for so long, without piety ever leading to its rebirth as a spoken language, that I think think this “shield” (good word for it) will never be lost. If in some hypothetical future Latin becomes a vernacular, then I hope that a distinction is retained between the liturgical form and the vernacular form. I understand that’s how Greek liturgies evolved and it seems to have worked for them.

This need for a special language at Mass was one of the topics in the Holy Father’s book Spirit of the Liturgy if I recall, and he discussion both the use of Latin and the use of “high” and “low” forms of a vernacular. I have read the same in several books on liturgy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Faulty conclusion even in sarcasm. The modern vernacular seems to have divided the faith, more than Greek, Latin, or Old Church Slavonic. I don’t think the same thing happened in the East, but the first step of Reformation was to interpret/translate Church documents, liturgy, and scripture as they wished into their own vernaculars, and stating it as truth. And it seems like English especially has brought on massive divisions even to the point where people stopped going to Mass altogether. Maybe some linguist can tell me why exactly, but since Henry VIII, English has never been a language that unified or identified any religion in a meaningful way. OTOH, Spanish or Polish or Italian speakers are predominantly Catholic.

Right, because there were no schisms in the First Millennium. Flawless conclusion on your part

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Latin is no longer evolving like other languages. The meaning of words in Latin no longer change over time. This is due to historical circumstances, that’s all.

In that regard, does it not serve faithfully as a language for documenting doctrinal teachings and lasting decisions of the Church, which meanings should endure over time?

 

[ProVobis]

We’re getting into some metaphysics now, as the “immutable-ness” of the language isn’t inherent to the language itself, but it exists in the minds of those who don’t know what is being said.

The Church made Latin immutable and all Popes since Pope Victor I have recognized this, though Cicero and other classicists get some credit for codifying its vocabulary and grammar. It’s still a matter of belief in the faith (for example, transubstantionem), understanding not so much. Attempting to understand the supernatural will only prove frustrating.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Latin is no longer evolving like other languages. The meaning of words in Latin no longer change over time.

Right. Like Koine Greek, the words never change. That is why we only have one translation of the Bible today because the words always mean the same

 

[ProVobis]

Right, because there were no schisms in the First Millennium.

You mean no formal schisms, don’t you?

 

[ConstantineTG]

You mean no formal schisms, don’t you?

Does a schism need the approval of the Pope? That would surprise the Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, etc.

 

[Rich_C]

Right. Like Koine Greek, the words never change. That is why we only have one translation of the Bible today because the words always mean the same

New translations come out because our modern language changes, while the source language remains the same. Also, I would not compare translating the scriptures and the liturgy too closely. The divinely-inspired words merit constant exegesis in every generation. The Church composed the liturgy to be simply and clearly understood. It’s not quite the same process, I think.

Also, your misuse of sarcasm makes you sound less intelligent than you are.*

*edited for charity