Praying in Latin

[Melchior_1]

But I am not a Benedictine or a Cisterician. Nor are the laity. Nor are diocesan churches. If you want to bring Heaven to Earth and have the congregation understand that this is what’s occuring, a beautiful Mass is an excellent start

Alright, then lets start taking back all the things the laity inherited from the consecrated religious. Because, using your logic, you don’t need them because “you’re not a Benedictine or a Cisterician”.

So you can forget about your rosary, and most likely the divine office. And the tabernacle needs to be moved away from the middle of the Sanctuary, that was a Franciscan invention.

You can also forget about the EF itself, since it was cribbed form the Franciscans.

Meanwhile, “bringing Heaven to Earth” is entirely subjective. To you the EF with Latin does this. To another, something else will do.

 

[Melchior_1]

Seriously, imagine where the world would be if everyone said “but I am not a Dominican. Nor are the laity. Nor are diocesan churches”.

Our Lady would be so thrilled.

 

[OraLabora]

Is this the experience of other posters? I only know the UK and Ireland and a full-on Roman Catholic mass, with Latin and Chant, is quite rare. However, since Summorum Pontificum, appending the phrase ‘as hen’s teeth’ is no longer apt

It has been my experience in any Benedictine monastery I have visited in Canada, France, Spain, Italy and the UK. OK in some places the chant is a bit better done… but it’s still chant.

I have also been to many nice OF parish masses, especially when our schola is providing the Gregorian chant

Honestly, though, bare churches, including parish churches are nothing new. I’ve seen a few in Europe. You can’t honestly expect the experience of religious orders to be neatly contained to prevent contamination of diocesan churches can you? If you do, you need to better understand the “catholic” part of Catholic. Catholic means universal.

Here are a couple of fairly austere churches I visited in Italy in 2009:

Pienza:



11th century chapel at the abbey founded by St. Benedict, Monte Cassino:



Now here’s the other extreme, the church also at Monte Cassino that was rebuilt after being bombed in WWII. This church in fact causes scandal among Benedictines for being overly ostentatious:



I can tell you I much prefer the 11th century chapel and would be much more inclined to pray there.

In the UK, Douai abbey conventual chapel:



A little closer to home, the chapel at the former Trappist abbey at Oka, Québec. Rich in architectural details to be sure, but otherwise bare:



The monks of Oka have moved to a new monastery and this is their conventual chapel:

 

[OraLabora]

And last but not least:

The conventual chapel at the monastery I’m affiliated with (built 1994)



Incidentally at the latter, the OF Mass is simply, well, as you put it, heaven on earth (Gregorian chant, chanted readings, incense, etc…)

Lastly a little gem found in the UK, St-Senara’s in Zennor, Cornwall. Yes it’s Anglican but since it’s 12th century it was once Catholic:



So you can see, plain churches have a long history in Catholicism.

 

[Melchior_1]

I like the looks of the chapel you’re affiliated with. I like all of what you posted except one actually, but I suppose most here would expect that.

Out of all of them I think I like the last one the best. Maybe those Anglicans can come home to Rome and we can have the building back!

 

[OraLabora]

But part of Latin’s beauty is/are its inflections. (This, of course, is true with Polish, Greek, and some other Eastern languages as well.) Latin is a language of endings. “Deus, Dei, Deo, Deum” give a different perspective, whereas “God” in the English is the same no matter how it’s used. And don’t get me started on the demonstative “this” which is vague too often.

I agree I love Latin in the liturgy, it chants so beautifully, and chant was designed to enhance the Word, not the other way around. I’ve seen some chant work well in French, for example plainchanted Eucharistic prayer, but the psalm modes work terribly due to the silent last syllables that are frequent in French. Our abbey has a French adaptation go to with Latin antiphons (for feasts and Sundays at the minor hours which are chanted in French), but they have very little resemblance to Gregorian chant other than the final note of the final syllable and the recitation chord.

And you’re right, sometimes the translation doesn’t change. For example, “Dic verbo” could easily be “Dic Verbum” as far as the English (Say the word). But there is a subtle difference between “Say the word” and “say with the word,” which the English translators seemed to have missed.

Another one is “consubstantialem Patri.” (There are actually three prefixes, including the dative, which the English can’t quite handle but it’s theologically important IMO.) So instead of the more literal “stands with and under” and “to the Father” we end up with “consubstantial with the Father” or “of one substance with the Father.” So I wouldn’t be surprised if they changed the Latin to “consubstatialem Patre” (ablative instead of dative.) But English shouldn’t be the driver here. There is danger in doing that as a new theology is introduced. I’m convinced many prayers were dropped in the reformed Mass (beginning in 1964) (Psalm 42, Offertory, Lavabo, etc.) because the ICEL just couldn’t agree on a translation that worked when it was actually sounded out with microphones. Also, if you look at various EF handmissals you will find many variations in the English translations. It’s good to follow along with but what exactly does “the joy of my youth” or “condescended to become partaker” mean to a Mass-goer’s ears anyway? Don’t forget, once in the vernacular, the Latin makes no difference and probably distorted to some degree. IMO, that isn’t what the SC called for.

Actually IMHO the danger to theology was greater with the hand missals as there was little control or standardization of the translations, and the average person in the pew could be misled by a poor translation (although arguably the subtleties of the theology would probably be lost on the average person in the pew).

At least post-Vatican II some sanity and control was brought over the translations by requiring one approved translation. Granted it could be flawed too, but as my example shows, so too can the Latin; we must remember that the Latin itself is attempt at a standardized translation from texts originally written in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, etc.

As much as I love the Latin liturgy (and prayers) I think the vernacular is here to stay and if that’s the case at least there is some control and standardization of translations.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Those churches are a bit bare. I’m think of devising a standard test, for general use by Catholics in the modern era and not just applied to churches.

One begins by asking the question: “What’s Catholic about it?”

The score increases the more aspects there are that would make a fervent Protestant choke.

e.g. Marian statues. Latin chant. A large standard crucifix. An acknowledegement of the special nature of the clergy and their authority. Candles. Rosaries. Kneeling. ‘Your salvation is not guaranteed simply by believing’. Smells and bells and mentions of Hell. Etc.

I come from a rural area. Nowhere special. I found a book which show the churches of that area. It was saddening to see what the modern ones looked like. From memory, anything after the 1940’s had a spaceship/pre-fab look about it. That was the trend. Now, these people are not poor. In fact, at the time there was real poverty about, the churches were quite fine

 

[ProVobis]

Actually IMHO the danger to theology was greater with the hand missals as there was little control or standardization of the translations, and the average person in the pew could be misled by a poor translation (although arguably the subtleties of the theology would probably be lost on the average person in the pew).

I agree strongly with this, especially if the average person reads ONLY the translation. I’ve always wanted to reduce the fonts of translations in those handmissals, and here they want to go about making them standards.

When I attend the Spanish Mass, I find my own printed Latin-Spanish booklet much more helpful than any English-Spanish booklet. And they haven’t kicked me out yet.

 

[OraLabora]

Those churches are a bit bare. I’m think of devising a standard test, for general use by Catholics in the modern era and not just applied to churches.

One begins by asking the question: “What’s Catholic about it?”

The score increases the more aspects there are that would make a fervent Protestant choke.

e.g. Marian statues. Latin chant. A large standard crucifix. An acknowledegement of the special nature of the clergy and their authority. Candles. Rosaries. Kneeling. ‘Your salvation is not guaranteed simply by believing’. Smells and bells and mentions of Hell. Etc.

I come from a rural area. Nowhere special. I found a book which show the churches of that area. It was saddening to see what the modern ones looked like. From memory, anything after the 1940’s had a spaceship/pre-fab look about it. That was the trend. Now, these people are not poor. In fact, at the time there was real poverty about, the churches were quite fine

Those churches are a bit bare by tradition (take note, one of them is from the 11th century. To force religious orders to revoke their traditions would be a disaster for Catholicism. That would in fact be far more Protestant than a bare church. It’s only one step removed from what the Protestants did to religious orders in the UK.

Honestly, I think it would be beneficial for you to study authentic Catholic tradition a bit more, especially the influence of religious orders and monasticism in particular on its development.

 

[malphono]

Honestly, though, bare churches, including parish churches are nothing new. I’ve seen a few in Europe. You can’t honestly expect the experience of religious orders to be neatly contained to prevent contamination of diocesan churches can you? If you do, you need to better understand the “catholic” part of Catholic. Catholic means universal.

Not that anyone asked for my opinions, but I’ll comment anyway.

Here are a couple of fairly austere churches I visited in Italy in 2009:

Pienza

Quite nice.

11th century chapel at the abbey founded by St. Benedict, Monte Cassino:

Classic monastic. Simple but subtle.

Now here’s the other extreme, the church also at Monte Cassino that was rebuilt after being bombed in WWII. This church in fact causes scandal among Benedictines for being overly ostentatious:

Hideous is more like it. But then, I’ve never been a fan of baroque or rococo.

I can tell you I much prefer the 11th century chapel and would be much more inclined to pray there.

Ditto.

In the UK, Douai abbey conventual chapel:

This wouldn’t be half bad if not for what I consider a poor excuse for an altar.

A little closer to home, the chapel at the former Trappist abbey at Oka, Québec. Rich in architectural details to be sure, but otherwise bare:

Yes, but it still seems a little busy to me. Maybe it’s just the angle.

The monks of Oka have moved to a new monastery and this is their conventual chapel:

Although I’m not partial to the architectural style, this is another that I think wouldn’t be bad if not for altar-slab thing.

And last but not least:

The conventual chapel at the monastery I’m affiliated with (built 1994)

To me, this is a far nicer modern interpretation than the previous one. But again, I think it’s marred by the very same feature noted above.

Lastly a little gem found in the UK, St-Senara’s in Zennor, Cornwall. Yes it’s Anglican but since it’s 12th century it was once Catholic:

Lovely!

So you can see, plain churches have a long history in Catholicism.

Indeed. And in general I tend to prefer the understated elegance.

 

[OraLabora]

Not that anyone asked for my opinions, but I’ll comment anyway.

Quite nice.

Classic monastic. Simple but subtle.

Hideous is more like it. But then, I’ve never been a fan of baroque or rococo.

Ditto.

This wouldn’t be half bad if not for what I consider a poor excuse for an altar.

Yes, but it still seems a little busy to me. Maybe it’s just the angle.

Although I’m not partial to the architectural style, this is another that I think wouldn’t be bad if not for altar-slab thing.

To me, this is a far nicer modern interpretation than the previous one. But again, I think it’s marred by the very same feature noted above.

Lovely!

Indeed. And in general I tend to prefer the understated elegance.

Actually the plain free-standing altar is another Benedictine thing. Traditionally Benedictines have the tabernacle in a side chapel, not front-and-center in the church.

 

[ProVobis]

…at least there is some control and standardization of translations.

But standization of a translation isn’t always an advantage either. For example, U.K. English and American English happen to differ in a lot of meanings and usage. IMO, there’s a lot of truth to the “English is what separates the U.K. and U.S.” joke. Economically it makes sense to keep the number of approved translations low but is this the best way of spreading the word in countries in which English is at best a second or third language and/or no one understands the dialect? After all, there is a lot more to Catholicism than just saying Jesus Christ.

 

[malphono]

Actually the plain free-standing altar is another Benedictine thing. Traditionally Benedictines have the tabernacle in a side chapel, not front-and-center in the church.

Yes, I know. The monastic tabernacle arrangement is not a problem for me nor, for that matter, is a free-standing altar in and of itself. Truth to tell, I prefer a free-standing altar for ad orientem celebration. Just not the ones in some of those photos.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Mmmmm, yesssss, that’s an interesting idea. Strong-arming monks to have more ornate Churches. I think it’s feasible. I like it!

Abbot: “Stop, stop, what are you doing!”;

Goon: “Err … is this St. Jude’s Abbey? (looks at manifest)”;

Abbot: “Yes”

Goon: "Got an order 'ere: Gold candlesticks, lace altar cloths, 32 icons (various), statues of Mary, Jesus and the top 10 most popular saints of the 21st Century (life size), full set of vestments (Roman, EF cycle) and Quentin.

Abbot: “Quentin?” (looks around)

Goon: “Yer. It’s this lad ‘ere (indicates etiolated youth). Quentin got a First in Art History at Cambridge, didncha’ Quentin?”

Quentin: “Oh yesssss”.

Goon: “He’s gonna *(peers at manifest) *‘re-order your sanctuary’. For starters.”

Abbot: “Whatttt!!? On whose authority? You can’t do this!”

Goon: (Peers at manifest) “The Latin Inquisition”

Abbot: “But, but, … I wasn’t expecting this!”

 

[Baelor]

One begins by asking the question: “What’s Catholic about it?”

The score increases the more aspects there are that would make a fervent Protestant choke.

I do not think that our standard for Churches should be based on anything other than what is appropriate for Catholics.

e.g. Marian statues. Latin chant. A large standard crucifix. An acknowledegement of the special nature of the clergy and their authority. Candles. Rosaries. Kneeling. ‘Your salvation is not guaranteed simply by believing’. Smells and bells and mentions of Hell. Etc.

Most of those are required. Incense is not required. A tabernacle is (to my knowledge). Candles are. A Crucifix is. Kneeling is. Rosaries are not. Latin chant is not.

Let us take a look at the required things: Tabernacle. Crucifix. Candles.

Those are enough to make the Catholic Church and its churches distinct, so all Catholic churches doing what they are required to do already pass the “What makes it Catholic?” test.

 

[sambos671]

Now I agree with the Pope about praying in Latin. And looking on the site given I agree with the top two points. But I have a question.

Why would the devil hate latin any more than any other language? Why not Hebrew? Hebrews is a beautifully writen language. And it was used for the OT. Why not Greek? The New testament and the earliest Church Fathers instructed the Church using Greek. In may be that excorcist may have more success in Latin. But why would that be? It seems to me that Jesus proclaimed in any language would be hateful to Satan.

Does this hold true for ancient latin or just ecclesiastical latin?

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Those are enough to make the Catholic Church and its churches distinct, so all Catholic churches doing what they are required to do already pass the “What makes it Catholic?” test.

Errr … kind of missing the point, there, Baelor. But doing the minimum; that’s always popular, in every sphere where there’s an obligation.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Why would the devil hate latin any more than any other language?

Because it’s a reminder of the Roman Catholic Church, piety, holiness and the prayers are a form of sound only associated with these things. People say “Jesus Christ!” when they drop a brick on their foot. They only say “Domine Jesu Christe” when praying. It’s the associations.

 

[Melchior_1]

Errr … kind of missing the point, there, Baelor. But doing the minimum; that’s always popular, in every sphere where there’s an obligation.

You’ve missed the entire point that OraLabora and myself were making, complete with yourself making a joke about throwing out 1500 years of authentic Benedictine tradition, and authentic 900 years of mendicant tradition.

Sometimes minimum is maximum. Think about Gospel Poverty, and the application of Gospel Poverty as it pertains to parish life. And before you say “the laity don’t take a vow of poverty”, I’m talking about Gospel Poverty. The one we are all called to do by Christ Jesus Himself.

 

[ProVobis]

In may be that excorcist may have more success in Latin. But why would that be?

Maybe because the devil is an Anglophone?