Praying in Latin

[una_fides]

Even when something is part of an encyclical or an apostolic constitution, it need not be authoritative, unless it is written with that intent.

The intent of an apostolic constitution is by its very nature to be more authoritative and definitive than an encyclical. Unless there is some a serious reason to do so, such as a contradiction of fact or other Church teaching, we should accept papal teachings directed to the Church as definitive and accept them.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, how do the canonists get around Canon 249? Isn’t there an implication that Latin is to be used? Otherwise why become skilled in it?

That’s a very good question. Not being a canonist myself, I can only share with you what I learned in canon law classes in the seminary. I was taught that one has to look at each canon as part of a whole. The canons are specifically placed in sections. One has to look at what the entire section says about the subject. For example, if a canon says that one has to become skilled in Latin, one has to look at what else that section of the law says about the liturgy. When we do so, we find that it speaks about the use of the local language in the liturgy. It is very clear that the local languages may be used. It is very clear that Latin is preferable. Nowhere does it say that Latin is mandated.

Then one also has to look at canonical tradition. That is, ask yourself if there has ever been another time when the law said that one had to be skilled in something and what was the expectation. There are. If one looks on the sections on formation of clergy and religious, they speak about acquiring skills in very specific areas, such as theology. However, the Church does not require that every priest or religious be a theologian or even know enough theology to speak theology, just enough to preach and teach basic faith formation.

Now we have a situation where the law is using the term “skilled” but it is clear that other languages are allowed and that the term has been used to mean well educated in a particular area. We also know that Latin is the official language of the Church. We’re left with one question. Does the law say that we must use Latin? The answer is, No it does not. It says that we must have skills in Latin and that it is the official language of the Church and even the preferred language of liturgy, but it does not say the exclusive language.

Reading Canon Law has very specific rules the one follows, just as does reading literature, civil law, or any other form of social science or humanities. Law is not like science. Science is pretty black and white. Law has all kinds of nuances, precedents, and customs. That’s why the Church sets the study of law apart from theology. Canon Law is not theology. It depends on theology. Because it is such a testy subject to study, it’s an academic area of its own. It takes a good five years to become a fluent reader in Canon Law.

Most of us are trained in the laws that we’re going to use more frequently. This certainly is not one of them. For example, the entire section on Consecrated Life is something that I can handle in my sleep. It was drilled into me for more than a year. The rest of the books were the canons were covered in the second year. One year for laws governing religious life and one year for all the other laws.

You get a lot of systems and methods, such as the one that I just showed you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

The intent of an apostolic constitution is by its very nature to be more authoritative and definitive than an encyclical. Unless there is some a serious reason to do so, such as a contradiction of fact or other Church teaching, we should accept papal teachings directed to the Church as definitive and accept them.

It is important to understand their nuance. There is something that is authoritative because it comes from one who is in authority. There is something that is authoritative, because it is the law.

In this case, none of these statements about Latin are the law of the Church. The law of the Church regarding Latin is found in the Code of Canon Law and in the GIRM. Unless a pope lays out something that overrules Canon Law or the GIRM, we go by those texts. That’s what we mean by nuance. We ask ourselves, “Does the writer mean to change the existing law?”

If there is no evidence to support that this is the intention, then we say that it is formal, official or try to use some other term that conveys that it can’t be ignored, but it is not to be taken as law either.

The problem is that sometimes people can be very literal. They see the term authoritative as meaning one thing and one thing only. For some it means dictatorial. For others it means that the source is an expert. And for others it means that what is in that statement is law.

When reading these documents, only one of these interpretations of authoritative really applies.

They are not dictatorial and they were not written as laws. The only interpretation that applies is that the source is an expert on the subject.

Let’s assume that they were written as laws. We have to look at what the current Magisterium does and does not do. Whatever the current Magisterium does trumps that law, in which case we follow the current Magisterium. Popes are not bound by other popes, by councils or by dogmatic constitutions. They are only bound by divinely revealed natural law, dogma and morals.

Even here, if we look at the current Magisterium, it is very comfortable with the use of the local languages for prayer and liturgy. What Pope Benedict is doing is encouraging the use of Latin, not dissuading the from the use of the local languages. If one says to me that he’s encouraging the use of Latin, I would agree totally that he is. If someone says that he wants this, I would have to disagree until he says, "No more vernacular or the vernacular is limited to . . . " The intent there is to dictate a rule.

See the difference?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

Even here, if we look at the current Magisterium, it is very comfortable with the use of the local languages for prayer and liturgy. What Pope Benedict is doing is encouraging the use of Latin, not dissuading the from the use of the local languages. If one says to me that he’s encouraging the use of Latin, I would agree totally that he is. If someone says that he wants this, I would have to disagree until he says, "No more vernacular or the vernacular is limited to . . . " The intent there is to dictate a rule.

Br JR, it’s interesting that Trent used the term “vulgar” tongues (in its Latin cognate) and Vatican II used the term “vernacular” (in its Latin cognate). Like nothing but vernacular is okay but vulgar everywhere is not? Just an observation.

 

[JReducation]

It’s interesting that Trent used the term “vulgar” tongues (in its Latin cognate) and Vatican II used the term “vernacular” (in its Latin cognate). Like vernacular is okay but vulgar everywhere is not? Just saying.

I think that was more of a cultural issue. Today, “vulgar” can mean “dirty” or “obscene” also. In previous years and centuries, “vulgar” meant “common”.

Today, even the term “common” can be derogatory. That’s why we use the “local language” rather than the “common language”. Say that to a Brit and it means something different from what it means to an American.

The same happened with Latin. If Vatican II had used “vulgar”, the translation would be been confusing to modern man, at least Europeans. I don’t know how it translates into Arabic and other Asian languages. But in European language, vulgar is not nice.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

But in European language, vulgar is not nice.

Precisely.

 

[una_fides]

It is important to understand their nuance. There is something that is authoritative because it comes from one who is in authority. There is something that is authoritative, because it is the law.

In this case, none of these statements about Latin are the law of the Church. The law of the Church regarding Latin is found in the Code of Canon Law and in the GIRM. Unless a pope lays out something that overrules Canon Law or the GIRM, we go by those texts. That’s what we mean by nuance. We ask ourselves, “Does the writer mean to change the existing law?”

If there is no evidence to support that this is the intention, then we say that it is formal, official or try to use some other term that conveys that it can’t be ignored, but it is not to be taken as law either.

The problem is that sometimes people can be very literal. They see the term authoritative as meaning one thing and one thing only. For some it means dictatorial. For others it means that the source is an expert. And for others it means that what is in that statement is law.

When reading these documents, only one of these interpretations of authoritative really applies.

They are not dictatorial and they were not written as laws. The only interpretation that applies is that the source is an expert on the subject.

Let’s assume that they were written as laws. We have to look at what the current Magisterium does and does not do. Whatever the current Magisterium does trumps that law, in which case we follow the current Magisterium. Popes are not bound by other popes, by councils or by dogmatic constitutions. They are only bound by divinely revealed natural law, dogma and morals.

Even here, if we look at the current Magisterium, it is very comfortable with the use of the local languages for prayer and liturgy. What Pope Benedict is doing is encouraging the use of Latin, not dissuading the from the use of the local languages. If one says to me that he’s encouraging the use of Latin, I would agree totally that he is. If someone says that he wants this, I would have to disagree until he says, "No more vernacular or the vernacular is limited to . . . " The intent there is to dictate a rule.

See the difference?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I think we are approaching these statements from two different perspectives. You seems to be looking at it as in how it affects the prayer of the universal Church and how the Church prays the liturgy, and that is why you are discussing laws of the Church and so forth. What I am referring to are the statements of fact within the encyclicals themselves that state the benefits of praying in Latin and explain what Latin effectively does.

Regarding papal intentions as to the place of Latin in the liturgy, their comments are clear when they say that Latin is to be given the primary place in the liturgy. There’s nothing in there that’s saying the vernacular should not be permitted or that the liturgy should only be offered in Latin, but it is clear that something cannot be given a primary place if it is not offered or if it’s very rarely ever offered and when it is not at all found in the vast majority of Latin Rite liturgies. Vatican II also states that the Latin language is to be retained in the Latin Rite, and that steps should be taken for the people to be able to say or chant in Latin the parts of the liturgy that pertain to them. The intention of the fathers of the Council could not be more clear. While there was an exception made to the rule, the exception is still an exception and not the general rule for the normal practice. So when pope Benedict talks about implementing his reform of the reform and says that Vatican II has never been implemented, and when he laments the many changes and abuses that took place, it is very safe to say that he has a different visiion for the liturgy that does include Latin, but he obviously is not trying to force this on everyone and drastically change the liturgy all at once. We saw the effects that a drastic change had the first time and the massive fall out that took place. Pope Benedict’s approach is a more gradual one that began with fixing the translation of the liturgy and also involves his promotion of various liturgical practices such as receiving Communion on the tongue kneeling and the promotion of the Traditional Latin Mass, among others, hoping that this will continue to catch on and spread to more and more places.

 

[JReducation]

I think we are approaching these statements from two different perspectives. You seems to be looking at it as in how it affects the prayer of the universal Church and how the Church prays the liturgy, and that is why you are discussing laws of the Church and so forth. What I am referring to are the statements of fact within the encyclicals themselves that state the benefits of praying in Latin and explain what Latin effectively does.

Regarding papal intentions as to the place of Latin in the liturgy, their comments are clear when they say that Latin is to be given the primary place in the liturgy. There’s nothing in there that’s saying the vernacular should not be permitted or that the liturgy should only be offered in Latin, but it is clear that something cannot be given a primary place if it is not offered or if it’s very rarely ever offered and when it is not at all found in the vast majority of Latin Rite liturgies. Vatican II also states that the Latin language is to be retained in the Latin Rite, and that steps should be taken for the people to be able to say or chant in Latin the parts of the liturgy that pertain to them. The intention of the fathers of the Council could not be more clear. While there was an exception made to the rule, the exception is still an exception and not the general rule for the normal practice. So when pope Benedict talks about implementing his reform of the reform and says that Vatican II has never been implemented, and when he laments the many changes and abuses that took place, it is very safe to say that he has a different visiion for the liturgy that does include Latin, but he obviously is not trying to force this on everyone and drastically change the liturgy all at once. We saw the effects that a drastic change had the first time and the massive fall out that took place. Pope Benedict’s approach is a more gradual one that began with fixing the translation of the liturgy and also involves his promotion of various liturgical practices such as receiving Communion on the tongue kneeling and the promotion of the Traditional Latin Mass, among others, hoping that this will continue to catch on and spread to more and more places.

Here we are in complete agreement.

I would even add that in a smaller world as the one in which we live and a scattered Latin Church that is no longer contained to Europe, the use of Latin is beneficial and practical. The first example that comes to mind are World Youth Days. You have people from every continent. If everyone knows the basic responses to the prayers of the mass in one language, it’s very practical. You don’t have to stand there and whisper them to yourself in your language or fumble through a booklet.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

una fides:

Again any sources you can provide would be appreciated.

I mentioned this actually in a previous post in this very thread. There are very few sources available for the average laymen on what the Franciscan Order did in the 1200-1300’s. There wasn’t a lot written down about it, and it wasn’t widely distributed outside of the Order. Even the Order itself relies on bits and pieces of information, and customs/traditions passed down from their foundation to the present. Reminds you of something else, no?

I find it odd sometimes that for a Faith that relied on oral tradition for the first few centuries before Scripture was finalized would have an issue with an Order preserving their traditions through the same method.

There’s one excellent book on Franciscan history, which is now out of print. It covers the first few centuries of the Order. Brother JR had a copy of the book, and it was used to teach him and others during their formation. The book is known to be reputable and accurate, however like I said;

1. No one knows about it.
2. It’s hard to find.

Well, it “was” hard to find. Now you can pick up a copy for 50 bucks using Amazon. Or 15 bucks if you’re cool and have great timing and get it shipped to your in-laws place in Florida to save money on shipping. Something I’m planning on doing when I get my hands on the book is creating a website about the early Franciscan years, so there’s more information readily available.

As an aside, regarding Franciscans and the Roman Rite, no one is saying that never used the Roman Rite. What Brother JR (and Franciscan historians) will tell you is that they used a special Missal for the Roman Rite, and they added some tweaks to it that Holy Father Francis picked up over the years in his travels. Things like the Tabernacle placement, vernacular, priest facing the people. Over the course of decades, they continued to use the Roman Rite, however it was different than the ones used on a normal parish level. One could say they were using a different “form” of the Roman Rite.

Once the codifying and streamlining of things happened at Trent, the Franciscans were able to keep their “form” due to using these types of things for centuries previous.

Back then during Trent, they may have even had an OF/EF style debate, instead it would have been Ordinary Form (Tridentine mass) and the Franciscan Form.

 

[ProVobis]

The same happened with Latin. If Vatican II had used “vulgar”, the translation would be been confusing to modern man, at least Europeans. I don’t know how it translates into Arabic and other Asian languages. But in European language, vulgar is not nice.

Okay but it is what it is. Calling a thorn a rose won’t make it sting less. Just saying.

Trent: * lingua tantum vulgari * (the vulgar language only)

Vatican II: *haud raro linguae vernaculae usurpatio * (the use of vernacular language not rarely)

 

[JReducation]

I mentioned this actually in a previous post in this very thread. There are very few sources available for the average laymen on what the Franciscan Order did in the 1200-1300’s. There wasn’t a lot written down about it, and it wasn’t widely distributed outside of the Order. Even the Order itself relies on bits and pieces of information, and customs/traditions passed down from their foundation to the present. Reminds you of something else, no?

I find it odd sometimes that for a Faith that relied on oral tradition for the first few centuries before Scripture was finalized would have an issue with an Order preserving their traditions through the same method.

There’s one excellent book on Franciscan history, which is now out of print. It covers the first few centuries of the Order. Brother JR had a copy of the book, and it was used to teach him and others during their formation. The book is known to be reputable and accurate, however like I said;

1. No one knows about it.
2. It’s hard to find.

Well, it “was” hard to find. Now you can pick up a copy for 50 bucks using Amazon. Or 15 bucks if you’re cool and have great timing and get it shipped to your in-laws place in Florida to save money on shipping. Something I’m planning on doing when I get my hands on the book is creating a website about the early Franciscan years, so there’s more information readily available.

As an aside, regarding Franciscans and the Roman Rite, no one is saying that never used the Roman Rite. What Brother JR (and Franciscan historians) will tell you is that they used a special Missal for the Roman Rite, and they added some tweaks to it that Holy Father Francis picked up over the years in his travels. Things like the Tabernacle placement, vernacular, priest facing the people. Over the course of decades, they continued to use the Roman Rite, however it was different than the ones used on a normal parish level. One could say they were using a different “form” of the Roman Rite.

Once the codifying and streamlining of things happened at Trent, the Franciscans were able to keep their “form” due to using these types of things for centuries previous.

Back then during Trent, they may have even had an OF/EF style debate, instead it would have been Ordinary Form (Tridentine mass) and the Franciscan Form.

Actually, we followed the old axiom, "When in Rome . . . " What we did in our conventual masses and what we did in parishes was not always the same. Parishes belong to the bishop. Some bishops have issues with religious orders using their customs, missals, calendars, etc. Since it’s the bishop’s parish, you do as in Rome. Some bishops just want you to take the parish and cover it. You have more wiggle room.

As to the use of Latin, we always had Latin. But while everyone was using Gregorian chant, Franciscans were using the few Laudas the Francis wrote in French and Italian and later some of the more popular German hymns that today we know in English.

The tabernacle in the center was a matter of pragmatics. The chapels were very small compared to a cathedral or a monastery. It was impossible to have a side altar.

Everything had a reason, but there was no codified plan. That has never been the Franciscan way of doing things. We’ve always flown by the seat of our pants. That’s why there are so many different communities.

By the way, even Moorman mentions many things in his text, then tells you in his footnotes that there are few pieces of actual documentation. He relies on word of mouth and practice.

One has to remember something very important about the early Franciscans. They were very poor. The had no libraries, no scriptorium and place for formal writing. There are very few writers from the 13th century: Thomas Celano, Bonaventure, Anthony of Padua, Faversham, of course Francis and Clare and a few others. It’s not until much later that the Franciscans begin to keep actual documentation of their life and work. Much of what we know is handed down by oral tradition, letters, journals, and just practice. It’s like the Christmas tree. To the best of my knowledge, there is no book on the origins of this tradition and for a very long time, no one even asked how it started.

I think that part of our problem today is that we want to know every detail about every little thing. We get so caught up in the details, that we miss the richness of the whole.

Okay but it is what it is. Calling a thorn a rose won’t make it sting less. Just saying.

Trent: * lingua tantum vulgari * (the vulgar language only)

Vatican II: *haud raro linguae vernaculae usurpatio * (the use of vernacular language not rarely)

I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to tell me. HELP!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[choliks]

Okay but it is what it is. Calling a thorn a rose won’t make it sting less. Just saying.

Trent: * lingua tantum vulgari * (the vulgar language only)

Vatican II: *haud raro linguae vernaculae usurpatio * (the use of vernacular language not rarely)

I think that part of our problem today is that we want to know every detail about every little thing. We get so caught up in the details, that we miss the richness of the whole.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I think PV is still caught up with the latin translations. I jest.

 

[Melchior_1]

Before I go to bed, there’s one quick thing I wanted to mention about the topic of authoritative documents. It reminds me of my marriage and how my wife sometimes communicates with me:

1. You seriously don’t have to do this.
2. It will be “favorable” if you do this. You don’t have to, but you’ll like the benefits that come with doing this.
3. Do this now, or there be problems.

 

[ProVobis]

I think PV is still caught up with the latin translations. I jest.

That too.

Interestingly enough, the posted translation to

*haud raro linguae vernaculae usurpatio *(“not rarely the use of vernacular language”) is

“frequently the use of the mother tongue”

How can one not see the bias in the translation? “Mother tongue”? “Frequently”?

But back to the point, for how many centuries they call it “vulgar,” then it becomes “vernacular,” then “mother tongue.” But does it substantively change anything? I think there was a reason why the spoken language in the Roman Empire was called Vulgar Latin, so it shouldn’t be used like Cicero’s Classic Latin or Church Latin.

And FWIW, the term “vernacular” itself has grown to be offensive in some circles. Maybe they see the term in its ancient negative connotation?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernacular

 

[ProVobis]

The first example that comes to mind are World Youth Days.

Every Sunday should be World Youth Day. (Introibo ad altare Dei/Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam). “I will go into the altar of God/To God who invigorates my youth.”)

My translation BTW.

 

[jeannetherese]

There’s one excellent book on Franciscan history, which is now out of print. It covers the first few centuries of the Order. Brother JR had a copy of the book, and it was used to teach him and others during their formation. The book is known to be reputable and accurate, however like I said;

1. No one knows about it.
2. It’s hard to find.

Well, it “was” hard to find. Now you can pick up a copy for 50 bucks using Amazon. Or 15 bucks if you’re cool and have great timing and get it shipped to your in-laws place in Florida to save money on shipping. Something I’m planning on doing when I get my hands on the book is creating a website about the early Franciscan years, so there’s more information readily available.

Melchior,
Please, the name of the book! Talk about keeping your readers on pins and needles.
Now I’m wondering if I missed it in your previous posts. I’m going to get poor marks for lurking.
I love the idea of the website. It would be great to get links going to books that become available free of charge on the internet as well. Maybe we can get the one you are referring to to the attention of Project Guttenberg?
Meanwhile, would you please share that title ( or would Brother J.R.?) It might be a year or two,before I get to it, but I’ll definately add it to the list.
I bet there are a lot of history buffs on CAF that would find it fascinating!
Thanks and may God bless alll who post on CAF! Amen.

 

[ProVobis]

there’s one quick thing I wanted to mention about the topic of authoritative documents.

But how else can you preserve an ancient language other than by authorization of some kind? Left to itself it will become obsolete obsolete, not just fell-out-of-use-so-we-don’t-use-it.

 

[JReducation]

But how else can you preserve an ancient language other than by authorization of some kind? Left to itself it will become obsolete obsolete, not just fell-out-of-use-so-we-don’t-use-it.

I believe that the CDF explained this on two different occasions. One was an interview with Cardinal Levada and the other was an interview with Archbishop Mueller. This week, Pope Benedict spoke about it again.

All three men have said that Vatican has deliberately avoided defining anything, commanding more than what is absolutely necessary and prohibiting very little, because the decision at Vatican II was to bring people to do what is right, because they want to do it, not because they have to do it or because the opposite is forbidden. This week, the Holy Father spoke about this again. He said, that with some exceptions, this will continue to be the policy of the Church for many years to come. It is a policy of invitation, not mandates and anathemas.

In this case, the Church puts out there what she believes about Latin. Her desire is that the people of God will listen, meditate on it and come to the same conclusion as the Magisterium. In this case, that conclusion would be that Latin is the official language of the Latin Church; that it is part of our patrimony; that is has the place of primacy, not because we’re Latin speakers, but because we’re the Church of Rome and the language of Rome was Latin. In other words, the preservation of Latin has to come from a desire on the part of all Latin Catholics, because they see the value of it. This way, it is preserved without usurping the modern languages used in liturgy and daily business of the Church.

It’s very important to note that the Vatican has to be very careful here. During the reign of Bl. John XXIII, he changed the official language of the Holy See from Latin to Italian. Vatican City had already adopted Italian as its official language. To bring them into harmony, the Holy Father adopted Italian. Documents coming out of the Holy See will always come out in Latin, with the accompanying translation in Italian. During the past 15 years or so, they have added several other languages that the Holy See now uses: Italian, Spanish, French, German, English, Arabic, Chinese and Portuguese.

There is a tight rope to be walked here. You can say that Latin is the official language of the Latin Church. But you cannot say that the Latin Church must use the official language, when the headquarters of the Latin Church has been using Italian as it’s daily language, only very formal documents are written in Latin. If you’re going to study theology at one of the pontifical universities in Rome, the language requirement is either Italian or Spanish. They no longer teach in Latin. Though we did read many old writings in Latin, because they have never been translated or the professors did not like the translations.

Those who work at the Vatican must be fluent in Italian, not in Latin. That’s not a requirement. The Franciscans are in charge of confessions at St. Peter’s. The friars who are assigned there must be fluent speakers in Italian. They do not require Latin. The friars are also the official preachers of the papal household. Again, the requirement is Italian, not Latin. They never preach to the pope in Latin. They are the official prelates of the Pope’s personal custody of the Holy Land. Again, the official language is Italian, even when they’re in the Holy Land, they speak Italian. Yet, these men are the best that the Franciscan Order has to offer. They come from all over the world. They are scrutinized, tested and their pedigree has to be impeccable. But Latin is not a requirement for any of these posts. It has not been since Bl. John XXIII. I believe that it may have changed around 1959, sometime during his first year as pope. I remember reading it in one of his biographies.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

In other words, the preservation of Latin has to come from a desire on the part of all Latin Catholics, because they see the value of it. This way, it is preserved without usurping the modern languages used in liturgy and daily business of the Church.

Br JR, they don’t see the value of it because they don’t see Latin at all. And even if they did see a little Latin, they wouldn’t know that most, if all, documents of the Church (or Cicero, for that matter) are in Latin. Most of our truths, faith, and morals originated in some ancient language. A 1962 handmissal or a 1970 Missal (in Latin) will probably last a lot longer than handmissals in a modern language. Aren’t we up to the 3rd English consecration alone already? And aren’t the Pope and the Vatican revisiting the translations of Vatican II?

As for speaking Italian in Italy, fair point. On the way the way to a Latin Mass, I see traffic signs, restaurants, stores, etc. all in English. But I don’t think they will be there 100 years from now. However I think the Latin Mass will still be there somewhere. So, yes, 24/7 business in everyday national tongue, worship perhaps in inflections and nuances more deemed to be sacred?

But Latin is not a requirement for any of these posts. It has not been since Bl. John XXIII. I believe that it may have changed around 1959, sometime during his first year as pope. I remember reading it in one of his biographies.

I believe it was about that time when Latin started to be dropped as a requirement in the government schools and universities as well. One can also look at the (57?) St. Joseph’s Missal alone to see that all the Latin propers have been removed, probably to save on paper.

 

[OraLabora]

Br JR, they don’t see the value of it because they don’t see Latin at all. And even if they did see a little Latin, they wouldn’t know that most, if all, documents of the Church (or Cicero, for that matter) are in Latin. Most of our truths, faith, and morals originated in some ancient language. A 1962 handmissal or a 1970 Missal (in Latin) will probably last a lot longer than handmissals in a modern language. Aren’t we up to the 3rd English consecration alone already? And aren’t the Pope and the Vatican revisiting the translations of Vatican II?

As for speaking Italian in Italy, fair point. On the way the way to a Latin Mass, I see traffic signs, restaurants, stores, etc. all in English. But I don’t think they will be there 100 years from now. However I think the Latin Mass will still be there somewhere. So, yes, 24/7 business in everyday national tongue, worship perhaps in inflections and nuances more deemed to be sacred?

I believe it was about that time when Latin started to be dropped as a requirement in the government schools and universities as well. One can also look at the (57?) St. Joseph’s Missal alone to see that all the Latin propers have been removed, probably to save on paper.

I think there will always be a core of people dedicated to preserving Latin. Certainly Benedictines of the Solesmes congregation use Latin daily in their liturgies around the world (and mostly in the Ordinary Form). Then there are the societies charged with preserving the EF liturgy, and lastly there are fans like people here, self included, who participate actively in good works to keep Latin alive; in my case by participating in a schola and by volunteering time as director and liturgist to the Gregorian Institute of Canada (I’ve been putting together the liturgies for the Divine Office several of our annual colloquiums).

So in some ways Latin in the liturgy is “safe” from extinction at least in the near and mid future. The urgent need is to expose as many as possible to this beautiful patrimony. Our choir sings in the archdiocese of Sherbrooke every month in a different parish. We’ve even started to accumulate a few “groupies” who follow us around to the different parishes when we sing

Oddly enough we get a surprising amount of interest from younger Catholics (some of which are our groupies!).

Note that we do all of this exclusively in the Ordinary Form. If I may venture an opinion here, perhaps if we do want Latin to “take off” and become relevant again for Catholics, we should be concentrating our efforts at getting more Latin into the OF as we are doing. Not of course saturating people with Latin, but exposing them to it on a regular enough basis. I think it will take in a wider audience. Most of these folks won’t make it to an EF Mass (especially in Sherbrooke where the only one is SSPX), and the EF Mass is filled with people already “converted” to the need to give Latin “pride of place” in the liturgy.

The OF is where most of the "evangelizing) for Latin needs to be done, and I think that can best be done by interested parishioners putting together a small schola and getting to work at learning chant and exposing their communities to Latin in a gentle way. The books for doing the OF Mass in Latin exist, as do the books to do the current LOTH in Latin.