Praying in Latin

[ProVobis]

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

And once in a while, they’ll throw in a little bit of Latin just to make it look Catholic.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

And once in a while, they’ll throw in a little bit of Latin just to make it look Catholic.

FWIW, I rarely have a problem distinguishing a Catholic Mass from any other form of worship, be it in Latin or local vernacular, EF or OF (or Eastern Rite ), with or without liturgical abuse. Perhaps it is the non-Catholic movie-goers that need such clues …

 

[clem456]

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!

1)Maybe YOU can’t expect others to respond in situations you don’t understand. If you were a mind-reading god, you would know how they respond. Maybe more to the point, your expectations of others are waaay too low.

2)There is nothing exclusive about the Mass. Nothing.The Mass is the antithesis of exclusiveness.

3)You do realize that what you describe here could very easily be a pagan ritual sacrifice, a club orientation, a devil worshippers initiation? exclusive sacrifices, mysterious languages, chanting.
Can you distinguish the difference between an idolatrous ritual and the Mass? Can you articulate the difference? Can you fit the word “people” in there anywhere?

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Sure the mass used to be exclusive. Women were excluded from the sanctuary. As were men in casual clothes. In the very early Church, mass was said by a Bishop attended by his priests. It was serious business which people prepared for weeks for, I’ve heard.

The symbolism told more directly than any lecture that something important was going on. That the community was giving of its best to honour God.

From what I’ve read, occultists do understand the value of vestments, lighting, chanting, unusual language, signs and symbols to effect spiritual change in people. As do all 99.99% of religions which worship god(s). But on this forum at least, that’s all scoffed at as ‘externals’ and irrelevant in light of one’s inner disposition.

In the 1960’s, it seems, we somehow realised we didn’t need all that. The problem for me is, that’s what the Protestants thought, too.

 

[Melchior_1]

Sure the mass used to be exclusive. Women were excluded from the sanctuary. As were men in casual clothes. In the very early Church, mass was said by a Bishop attended by his priests. It was serious business which people prepared for weeks for, I’ve heard.

The symbolism told more directly than any lecture that something important was going on. That the community was giving of its best to honour God.

From what I’ve read, occultists do understand the value of vestments, lighting, chanting, unusual language, signs and symbols to effect spiritual change in people. As do all 99.99% of religions which worship god(s). But on this forum at least, that’s all scoffed at as ‘externals’ and irrelevant in light of one’s inner disposition.

In the 1960’s, it seems, we somehow realised we didn’t need all that. The problem for me is, that’s what the Protestants thought, too.

Meanwhile, you’re scoffing at those in the Roman Rite who practice austere liturgical practices. It does go both ways, you know. You’ve also effectively called those who disagree with your Protestants, or at least of having a Protestant mindset.

Also, last time I checked the reformation was also about corruption of church officials, theology, and the papacy.

 

[ProVobis]

FWIW, I rarely have a problem distinguishing a Catholic Mass from any other form of worship, be it in Latin or local vernacular, EF or OF (or Eastern Rite ), with or without liturgical abuse. Perhaps it is the non-Catholic movie-goers that need such clues …

I had a problem once, having being invited to a fellow coworker’s Vietnamese wedding. Several of us thought it was all Catholic until we learned later from the bridegroom himself that it was Baptist and he went on some tirade and he would never be Catholic. Sorry we asked him.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Meanwhile, you’re scoffing at those in the Roman Rite who practice austere liturgical practices.

I am saying that it is a cruel and curious thing to impose ‘austerity’ on diocesan churches which previously didn’t have it.

 

[OraLabora]

I am saying that it is a cruel and curious thing to impose ‘austerity’ on diocesan churches which previously didn’t have it.

This has happened for many more years prior to Vatican II when different religious orders had charge of diocesan churches or the nearest church one was able to attend was the conventual Mass of a local monastery. It’s really not “cruel and curious”. It’s part of Catholic tradition and its patrimony. Oddly, for someone who claims that versus populum turns the Mass into a show, you certainly seem to be very much into a Mass with lots of pomp and circumstance… which some can be led to interpret as a…show. I would recommend popping into the 7 am OF Mass at St. Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal on an ordinary weekday. Just a handful of regulars, a quiet, recited Mass, everyone quiet, respectful and reverential, no pomp, no ceremony, you can even receive communion at a communion rail, on the tongue, if you so desire, many do and most do keel.

You enter the crypt church in the dark, pray for a while in a stillness so quiet you can hear a pin drop, and come out at sunrise over the city energized and filled with grace for your day. It’s really quite a stark but beautiful experience and in no way “Protestant”. You can even, before or after Mass, pray on the tomb of St. André Bessette. You might want to pick up a bit of French mind you though there are English Masses during the day.

And here’s two predictions I’m confident in making: Latin, in the Church, isn’t going away any time soon. Between Benedictine monasteries, especially those of the Solesmes congregation, and scholas like the one I chant with, there’s no shortage of people officially (Solesmes) or unofficially charged with preserving the Church’s Laitn patrimony. Take myself, I sing Latin Gregorian chant in a schola, I belong to the Gregorian Institute of Canada, and I chant Lauds and Vespers every day in Latin and Compline on Sundays too. I love praying in Latin. I just don’t think it’s either necessary nor superior. I just feel an urge to do my part to preserve this part of our heritage.

The second prediction, Latin isn’t going to come back in a huge way any time soon in the Church; even the Vatican now uses Italian as its daily lingua franca, instead of Latin. THAT genie has been let out of the bottle, endless CAF arguments notwithstanding. We need to learn to get over it, and to enjoy what Latin does exist where it exists (in my case at a very beautiful OF Mass that is celebrated in Gregorian chant every single day of the week), and, for those who want Latin where it isn’t available (either motu proprio EF or a Latin OF), put your money and talents where your mouth is, learn chant, start a schola or join one, and get crackin’. Don’t expect it to just fall out of the sky for you. It’s not an entitlement. The Mass is an entitlement, not the form or the language. Be grateful if you have one, many places have such a shortage of priests they’re lucky to have one Mass a month.

 

[Melchior_1]

I am saying that it is a cruel and curious thing to impose ‘austerity’ on diocesan churches which previously didn’t have it.

I’m sorry, why the quotation marks?

I encourage you to read OraLabora’s thoughtful response.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I had a problem once, having being invited to a fellow coworker’s Vietnamese wedding. Several of us thought it was all Catholic until we learned later from the bridegroom himself that it was Baptist and he went on some tirade and he would never be Catholic. Sorry we asked him.

I assume this wedding was in a Vietnamese Catholic church. So long as the wife was Catholic, what was the problem? More interestingly, why would the fact that the groom was adamantly opposed to converting make the wedding any less Catholic?

I was married (with proper dispensation) in my wife’s Methodist Church. I could never become a Methodist (nor, by the way, was it even mentioned by those who prepared us). Does that mean I was not married? Just can’t follow the logic here …

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I encourage you to read OraLabora’s thoughtful response.

Yes, well stated

BTW - the point about daily Italian usage at the Vatican should not be overlooked.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Oddly, for someone who claims that versus populum turns the Mass into a show, you certainly seem to be very much into a Mass with lots of pomp and circumstance… which some can be led to interpret as a…show.

It would be, if it were a show directed at me. Ad-orientem means everyone knows Whom it’s directed to.

As for your personal experience: That’s good. But the reality for a lot of people is mass with one or more of the following: bare church, unvested lay lectors, the local language, childish hymns, CITH, unnecessary EMHCs, bowing to the tabernacle instead of genflecting, a new mass, a new slant on theology, etc. There’s a wild difference between 1912 and 2012.

Now, if the changes are doing the job, great. If they’re not, if there is scandal and attrition, then the opposition to the older mass and Latin is peculiar. There’s nothing to stop Pope Pius XIII from saying “The experiment is over, here is what we will do now” in 30 years time, once those with an emotional attachment to the revolution have gone to their reward. Then the changes can be reviewed coldly and discussed logically, in the light of the great project of saving souls.

 

[Melchior_1]

It would be, if it were a show directed at me. Ad-orientem means everyone knows Whom it’s directed to.

Unless you’re in a Benedictine Abby, where for over a thousand years they haven’t had the tabernacle in the front and centre. I guess they’d just be staring at a wall.

Everything you said in your last paragraph can be said about the E.F.

 

[OraLabora]

It would be, if it were a show directed at me. Ad-orientem means everyone knows Whom it’s directed to.

As for your personal experience: That’s good. But the reality for a lot of people is mass with one or more of the following: bare church, unvested lay lectors, the local language, childish hymns, CITH, unnecessary EMHCs, bowing to the tabernacle instead of genflecting, a new mass, a new slant on theology, etc. There’s a wild difference between 1912 and 2012.

Now, if the changes are doing the job, great. If they’re not, if there is scandal and attrition, then the opposition to the older mass and Latin is peculiar. There’s nothing to stop Pope Pius XIII from saying “The experiment is over, here is what we will do now” in 30 years time, once those with an emotional attachment to the revolution have gone to their reward. Then the changes can be reviewed coldly and discussed logically, in the light of the great project of saving souls.

I actually prefer a bare church, as did thousands of Benedictines and Cistercians who came 1500 years before me. There’s nothing scandalous about a bare church that reflects the poverty of its locale.

Ya know, if Vatican II’s changes bother you so much, you can 1) try to get elected pope and make the changes you crave so badly and think are so necessary, 2) leave or go the SSPX way and place yourself in schism or 3) accept the Church, the decisions of the Holy Father and Magisterium and all its people warts and all, in humble obedience and learn to adapt by finding pearls of joy and beauty where you can (like learning chant and joining a schola). For the benefit of your soul I recommend 3). You’ll be pleasantly surprised by joy in the most unlikely places!

 

[ProVobis]

I assume this wedding was in a Vietnamese Catholic church.

I should have mentioned it was a Baptist Church. We weren’t sent any elequent invitations, just general instructions on how to get there through an email from the co-worker. Parking was in back so no one looked at the Church sign coming in, not that it would have mattered as it was in Vietnamese and no one was going to turn back anyway. I don’t see where the religion of the wife was even relevant.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, well stated

BTW - the point about daily Italian usage at the Vatican should not be overlooked.

I believe under the previous Pope, Polish was more commonly spoken around the Vatican. Business is business but it should come as no shock that they’ve prayed in Italian in Italy for centuries. The Vatican is only a tiny piece within Italy.

 

[Melchior_1]

I actually prefer a bare church, as did thousands of Benedictines and Cistercians who came 1500 years before me. There’s nothing scandalous about a bare church that reflects the poverty of its locale.

You can throw myself and the Franciscans in there too, in the sense most of us don’t really care what the church looks like (and if you work with the poor and/or lower middle class, chances are the churches in the neighborhood might not look the best).

Ya know, if Vatican II’s changes bother you so much, you can 1) try to get elected pope and make the changes you crave so badly and think are so necessary, 2) leave or go the SSPX way and place yourself in schism or 3) accept the Church, the decisions of the Holy Father and Magisterium and all its people warts and all, in humble obedience and learn to adapt by finding pearls of joy and beauty where you can (like learning chant and joining a schola). For the benefit of your soul I recommend 3). You’ll be pleasantly surprised by joy in the most unlikely places!

Well said.

 

[clem456]

accept the Church, the decisions of the Holy Father and Magisterium and all its people warts and all, in humble obedience and learn to adapt by finding pearls of joy and beauty where you can (like learning chant and joining a schola). For the benefit of your soul I recommend 3). You’ll be pleasantly surprised by joy in the most unlikely places!

Amen to trust, acceptance, participation ======>> JOY and PEACE

 

[ByzCathCantor]

As for your personal experience: That’s good. But the reality for a lot of people is mass with one or more of the following: bare church, unvested lay lectors, the local language, childish hymns, CITH, unnecessary EMHCs, bowing to the tabernacle instead of genflecting, a new mass, a new slant on theology, etc. There’s a wild difference between 1912 and 2012.

The problem now is not so much that the Church has delivered this as a norm, but that many people have come to accept it as such, and there is a not-at-all silent minority that continues to push the agenda. We are now at the stage where these are entrenched trends. Young adults have grown up with this experience, and it is what they know.

Now, if the changes are doing the job, great. If they’re not, if there is scandal and attrition, then the opposition to the older mass and Latin is peculiar. There’s nothing to stop Pope Pius XIII from saying “The experiment is over, here is what we will do now” in 30 years time, once those with an emotional attachment to the revolution have gone to their reward. Then the changes can be reviewed coldly and discussed logically, in the light of the great project of saving souls.

This statement sadly ignored the steady influence of the current Pontiff on the subject of Sacred Liturgy. He has spoken rather clearly, and pastorally - that is to say, gently as a teacher and as elder statesman. As 5Loaves mentioned in another thread, even the Orthdox have acknowledged this - its funny that sme Catholics cannot do the same.

Frankly, the problem must end by changing the condition that seeded the trend - the influence of “liberal” bishops that permit such in their own dioceses. Knowing that his time is limited, His Holiness has been rather deliberate in selecting new bishops, cut from a more orthodox cloth. He seems to know what it will take, and that history is not quickly erased without risking other consequences.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I believe under the previous Pope, Polish was more commonly spoken around the Vatican. Business is business.

Yes, but not nearly to the extent Italian is used in daily exchange, under a German Pope who has been in the Vatican for a few decades now. Sure, Polish was heard in the Papal apartment, but not in St. Peter’s Square - I think that was more the original point.