The Latin mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter veronicax
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, I wouldn’t want to see a full blown return to the use of the Latin language in the Liturgy.

One of my primary reasons is that most people are not familiar enough in Latin for full, concious, and active participation in the Liturgy being in Latin (or any language that they are not moderately fluent in, e.g., Mass in German in your average suburban American parish would be just as bad). The majority of people haven’t been capable enough in Latin for full, active, and concious participation since the first millennium. There’s a reason that only a well trained server replied to a priest in the Tridentine Mass. Now, that doesn’t mean that Latin couldn’t be used, say, for the Ordinary on more solemn occasions, like Easter or Christmas. My own parish uses the Latin Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei one weekend a month. But, as Vatican II and the pre-conciliar popes going back to Pope St. Pius X have called for full, active, and concious participation in the Liturgy, I think history bears out that the vernacular generally facilitates this much more readily.
 
JMJ_coder said:
But, as Vatican II and the pre-conciliar popes going back to Pope St. Pius X have called for full, active, and concious participation in the Liturgy, I think history bears out that the vernacular generally facilitates this much more readily.
Click to expand...
“Actuosa participatio” is what they called for. I think they did a bad job in translating the term. One should be able to go to a German Mass and participate, whether he understands German or not. Pius X and Vatican II didn’t restrict Masses to only the language you happen to understand. If you visit Germany, what then?
 
JMJ_coder said:
No, I wouldn’t want to see a full blown return to the use of the Latin language in the Liturgy.

One of my primary reasons is that most people are not familiar enough in Latin for full, concious, and active participation in the Liturgy being in Latin (or any language that they are not moderately fluent in, e.g., Mass in German in your average suburban American parish would be just as bad). The majority of people haven’t been capable enough in Latin for full, active, and concious participation since the first millennium. There’s a reason that only a well trained server replied to a priest in the Tridentine Mass. Now, that doesn’t mean that Latin couldn’t be used, say, for the Ordinary on more solemn occasions, like Easter or Christmas. My own parish uses the Latin Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei one weekend a month. But, as Vatican II and the pre-conciliar popes going back to Pope St. Pius X have called for full, active, and concious participation in the Liturgy, I think history bears out that the vernacular generally facilitates this much more readily.
Click to expand...
One point, did you know that the text and actions of the Latin Mass are quite different from the Mass you’re used to? The Church re-wrote the whole Mass, didn’t just translate it.

But back to your point, do you really think Holy Mother Church really left her children in the dark for 15 centuries?

Word-for-word comprehension isn’t necessary for full, active, participation. Neither is responding. I’ve been to Mass in foreign countries and participated just as well after I got the hang of where we were in the Mass.

I think history is still out on whether the vernacular has been a benefit or not.

Most people I knew growing up, including myself, did not know that the Mass is the Sacrifice of the Cross even though our Mass was in vernacular. The old people I know who grew up with the old Latin Mass, did know that. Having talked to Catholics from around the country, I don’t think we were an isolated example.

Since participating in Mass is primarily measured by how well we unite ourselves to Christ’s Sacrifice thats represented before us, which group above do you think was participating better?

My point is, catechesis, not language is the deciding factor.
 
JMJ_coder said:
No, I wouldn’t want to see a full blown return to the use of the Latin language in the Liturgy.

One of my primary reasons is that most people are not familiar enough in Latin for full, concious, and active participation in the Liturgy being in Latin (or any language that they are not moderately fluent in, e.g., Mass in German in your average suburban American parish would be just as bad). The majority of people haven’t been capable enough in Latin for full, active, and concious participation since the first millennium. There’s a reason that only a well trained server replied to a priest in the Tridentine Mass. Now, that doesn’t mean that Latin couldn’t be used, say, for the Ordinary on more solemn occasions, like Easter or Christmas. My own parish uses the Latin Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei one weekend a month. But, as Vatican II and the pre-conciliar popes going back to Pope St. Pius X have called for full, active, and concious participation in the Liturgy, I think history bears out that the vernacular generally facilitates this much more readily.
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine that the training to be a server is too hard. Learning the prayers just takes some dedication and desire to learn. Isn’t that what we should all offer to our God? I mean take this picture that I took recently:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

All of these servers were kids, only one was a bit older. If they can learn all of the responses then why can’t us people in the pews? Throughout history, servers were typically children. You also have to remember that in the past people weren’t as well educated as today. So for those people learning another language like Latin wasn’t so easy. Today with so much information at our fingertips, learning is easier than ever if you put the effort.
 
ProVobis said:
First, they want to fulfill their Sunday obligation. After that, communion, I suppose. 🙂
Click to expand...
Well, of course.

But it is interesting that someone can say “I want a Mass in Latin” or “I want the Mass to revert to Latin,” but have no idea what they really mean.

I guess I find it even more interesting that everyone here assumes they are looking for the EF, rather than the OF, in Latin. 🤷

So, OP, what is it you are looking for?
 
Why does this have to be about the Latin vs.vernacular? In many places both forms are celebrated. I think what the OP is saying is that it would be better if the Latin Mass was more liberally provided? It shouldn’t be an either/or thing. Why does it always seem to descend into the same argument? Isn’t the Catholic Church big enough and generous enough to provide for both the EF and OF in all areas of the world?

I would really like to see a more generous provision for the EF Mass. There are so many areas where it is not provided in the locality, even though there are Catholics who sincerely desire to see it celebrated. Why not be more open-minded about it? Why all the anger and misunderstanding?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top