This is an excellent point. The numbers really do speak for themselves, especially when compared to other religions who did not experience this same falling out. If it was just the culture or other variables unrelated to the substantial changes that took place, then one would expect to see the same drop offs in protestant and other non-Catholic religions.What can one say? Apparently some vernaculars work better than others. Polish and Spanish-speaking people are mostly Catholics, while only a small percentage of English speakers are. And there are about 500 million Catholics in South America, I hear. Vatican II allowed the vernacular where it might show to be of “advantage” but I fail to see where an attendance drop in the U.S. from 70-80% in 1960 to 10-20% today shows any advantage of using English in the Catholic liturgy. Just saying.
It has little to do with language. Frankly, if we were to have an honest critique of Latin America we wouldn’t be heralding the expose of Christianity.What can one say? Apparently some vernaculars work better than others. Polish and Spanish-speaking people are mostly Catholics, while only a small percentage of English speakers are. And there are about 500 million Catholics in South America, I hear. Vatican II allowed the vernacular where it might show to be of “advantage” but I fail to see where an attendance drop in the U.S. from 70-80% in 1960 to 10-20% today shows any advantage of using English in the Catholic liturgy. Just saying.
Deo gratias! The false cry from the “reformers” to “return to the early Church” was in reality a cry to return to their own spin off recreation of what they thought the early Church was like in its infancy. How easy it is for one to remake history to his own liking by taking things out of context and ignoring other evidence that says contrary. Do we really think the “reformers” of the Roman liturgy wanted to return completely to the early Church? If so, where are the intense public penances? Where are the very strict condemnations of sin? Where is the talk of eternal damnation and punishment? Where are the excommunications and the admonitions to be separate from heretics and sinners? All these things were quite prevalent in the Church from her earliest days. A reading of the early Church fathers makes this quite apparent. The bishops then, many of whom became martyrs for the faith, spoke and acted entirely different than do the bishops of today. Where is the return to the early Church? The reality is that this “return” is the same protestant cry of a return to a false sense of history and a false sense of reality. The Church and her liturgy grew and developed organically throughout the centuries, and in the Latin Church, the Latin language held a place of preemince for a thousand and a half years! That reason alone is enough to keep it in its prime place out of a sense of reverence and respect for our liturgical patrimony.From the Didascalia Apostolorum (The colored portion is the redactor’s comment.) (emphasis added)
…Let the place of the priests be separated in a part of the house that faces east. In the midst of them is placed the bishop’s chair, and with him let the priests be seated. Likewise, and in another section let the lay men be seated facing east. For thus it is proper: that the priests sit with the bishop in a part of the house to the east and after them the lay men and the lay women, and when you stand to pray, the ecclessial leaders rise first, and after them the lay men, and again, then the women. Now, you ought to face to east to pray for, as you know, scripture has it, Give praise to God who ascends above the highest heavens to the east. [Again note, Mass was NOT celebrated facing the people as some suppose of the early Church. Everyone was to face to the east, clergy and people. Everyone faced one direction. The text cites Scripture as the reason for this. God is to the East, the origin of the light.]
You mean like in Africa? Did you by chance read any of those excerpts cited earlier from Cardinal Arinze about praying in Latin?Exception? Or precedent for the evangelization of people where Latin has little or no meaning. The Church has grown far beyond the confines of Europe to places where Latin is of little relevance, is difficult for even educated locals to pronounce properly and isn’t even close to the local language.
Everyone is facing in the same direction though. If the people happen to be in front of the priest because of an architectural necessity that doesn’t mean that the priest is facing the people any more than it does that he is facing a door to the entrance of the Church or a pew or anything else in front of him. The point is that the people are not the focal point of the liturgy! Christ is! If you haven’t already, I suggest reading Spirit of the Liturgy by Pope Benedict. Click on the title for a shortcut to the relevant part about ad orientem worship.Isn’t that exactly what I said? At St Peter’s versus populum and ad orientem are the same. Which was to refute your argument that somehow facing the people removed from the mysticism of the Mass. The mysticism, if that’s the term to use, comes from facing East, whether that means facing the people or not.
So, that is to say the Catholic Church in America is falling apart because of the predominant use of vernacular for the Mass?This is an excellent point. The numbers really do speak for themselves, especially when compared to other religions who did not experience this same falling out. If it was just the culture or other variables unrelated to the substantial changes that took place, then one would expect to see the same drop offs in protestant and other non-Catholic religions.
I would say that a restoration of Latin to prime place in the Latin Rite, as Vatican II itself mandated, would help facilitate an increased sense of the sacred nature of the liturgy, would help quell some of the liturgical abuse, and would produce greater fidelity to the Church and her teachings. The Church in America has many many problems. Restoring Latin in the liturgy will obviously not come close to solving them all, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.So, that is to say the Catholic Church in America is falling apart because of the predominant use of vernacular for the Mass?
That is a refreshingly honest answer.The Church in America has many many problems. Restoring Latin in the liturgy will obviously not come close to solving them all, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.
Then why are they pushing English to be the official language of the U.S.? Or how about using Russian in Ukraine?It has little to do with language.
This isn’t certain but let’s face it, an Anglophone has many choices of denominations where he can worship and he’s in a lot of company if he doesn’t worship at all. Our pastor said this as fact: the largest “denomination” in the U.S. is/are ex-Catholics.So, that is to say the Catholic Church in America is falling apart because of the predominant use of vernacular for the Mass?
I agree with the traditional Pope John XXIII. Latin should have a primary place. Yet, for the right reasons.Seems like in this environment, Latin, having no native speakers, has not much chance.
Well, I think it’s not unreasonable to say that one of the major causes was the complete disregard for what Vatican II asked for, and one of those things was a retention of lots of latin (even though some vernacular should be allowed). Incidentally, another was the holding up of gregorian chant and polyphony as the ideal music for the liturgy, another thing that’s been ignored.So, that is to say the Catholic Church in America is falling apart because of the predominant use of vernacular for the Mass?
While your point is reasonably clear, these examples really don’t support it.Then why are they pushing English to be the official language of the U.S.? Or how about using Russian in Ukraine?
Why? The development of the Liturgy is clearly cataloged in the Byzantine tradition. We know that there was a time, for centuries, that Communion was given in the hand. We know there was a time when people knelt on Sundays. We know there was a time when our current Liturgy, even though it was written by St. John Chrysostom on 400AD, did not look like the way we celebrate it today.Um… It was… This is also very odd to hear coming from an eastern Catholic…
This isn’t certain but let’s face it, an Anglophone has many choices of denominations where he can worship and he’s in a lot of company if he doesn’t worship at all. Our pastor said this as fact: the largest “denomination” in the U.S. is/are ex-Catholics.
Presumptions regarding my feelings on the matter aside, please note my subsequent response (post # 481).Well, I think it’s not unreasonable to say that one of the major causes was the complete disregard for what Vatican II asked for, and one of those things was a retention of lots of latin (even though some vernacular should be allowed). Incidentally, another was the holding up of gregorian chant and polyphony as the ideal music for the liturgy, another thing that’s been ignored.
Well, the Catholic Church in America should do a better job of integrating the faith into the culture. Will Latin help that? I doubt. I think it is besides the point. If the faith is incultured, it wouldn’t matter what the language is.This isn’t certain but let’s face it, an Anglophone has many choices of denominations where he can worship and he’s in a lot of company if he doesn’t worship at all. Our pastor said this as fact: the largest “denomination” in the U.S. is/are ex-Catholics.
IMHO the modern music used in the novus ordo is an even worse problem than the lack of Latin though the two often go hand in hand. Music has the ability to set the tone, mentality, and emotion for mass. Casual music = casual liturgy = casual approach to the faith lex orandi lex credendi lex vivendi. Gregorian Chant elevates the mind and soul to heaven where the body hopefully will then also follow.Well, I think it’s not unreasonable to say that one of the major causes was the complete disregard for what Vatican II asked for, and one of those things was a retention of lots of latin (even though some vernacular should be allowed). Incidentally, another was the holding up of gregorian chant and polyphony as the ideal music for the liturgy, another thing that’s been ignored.
You raise a good point about cultural identity. People identify with others and imitate and live their lives according to that identity. We are Latin Rite Catholics and Latin creates this unique sense of Catholic identity and helps unite us together as one Church in union with the pope. Latin helps facilitate this universal Catholic identity that helps facitate our faithful Catholc culture united together troughout the entire world. Part of a much bigger culture than just a local one.Well, the Catholic Church in America should do a better job of integrating the faith into the culture. Will Latin help that? I doubt. I think it is besides the point. If the faith is incultured, it wouldn’t matter what the language is.
Sorry I think thats a lot of just bad history to say mass was celebrated facing the people when that was not the case. The people were never the focus of direction of prayer. Communion in the hand is also debatable as to whether it took place on a large scale or just in an isolated area or whether it occurred at all. That is the problem when someone tries to piece together history from literally one general mention. We definitely know for a fact it was outlawed and forbidden by the Church for the vast majority of her existence. I suggest reading more traditional histories of the Church. They tend to much less revisionist and modernist in their agenda.Why? The development of the Liturgy is clearly cataloged in the Byzantine tradition. We know that there was a time, for centuries, that Communion was given in the hand. We know there was a time when people knelt on Sundays. We know there was a time when our current Liturgy, even though it was written by St. John Chrysostom on 400AD, did not look like the way we celebrate it today.
I don’t know why you find it odd. We are just honest with our history.
I like how you lump all “modern music” as “casual”, and how you then proceed to say that anyone who enjoys modern music at Mass has “casual faith”.Casual music = casual liturgy = casual approach to the faith
I was replying to the comment to the effect that language isn’t important. Not only language but the wording within the language are important.While your point is reasonably clear, these examples really don’t support it.