J
- Status
D
Damase
Guest
No, but that’s not the only reason why the liturgy should be in Latin.
V
VetA
Guest
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
J
jmcrae
Guest
Obviously, God can understand every language. But if we are just reciting prayers by rote, without thinking about them (that is to say, without meaning) then what is there for God to understand?
Switching up the language from time to time, and going back to the Latin from time to time, helps us stay alert to what it is that we are actually praying for, and helps us focus our mind and hearts on the meaning of our prayers. It’s good for our spiritual life with God, to do this at least once in a while.
D
Damase
Guest
What I meant was that even though God may be able to understand languages other than Latin, that doesn’t mean that the liturgy ought not to be in Latin.
God doesn’t need the liturgy—His Church does.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
jmcrae
When ever I’ve attended Mass with Latin, I use my Missal, but I’m constantly looking over to page with the English translation. Its a distraction as far as prayer goes.
If anything, when I was growing up in the Pre-Vatican II church, reciting prayers in Latin by rote, is all we did. Memorizing prayers by rote, was the requirement in becoming an altar boy. Altar boys didn’t learn what the words actually meant, and those who served, said them so fast it was near impossible to understand what they were saying, much less follow along in your missal.
Jim
And how does a person who doesn’t understand Latin, solve this issue?
When I pray to God from within my being, I pray mentally with my own language. I wouldn’t know how to do otherwise.
When ever I’ve attended Mass with Latin, I use my Missal, but I’m constantly looking over to page with the English translation. Its a distraction as far as prayer goes.
If anything, when I was growing up in the Pre-Vatican II church, reciting prayers in Latin by rote, is all we did. Memorizing prayers by rote, was the requirement in becoming an altar boy. Altar boys didn’t learn what the words actually meant, and those who served, said them so fast it was near impossible to understand what they were saying, much less follow along in your missal.
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
And the people of God’s Church should be able understand the words of that Liturgy.
The Mass shouldn’t be something abstract which in Latin, it becomes for those who are not fluent in the language.
So, it makes perfectly good sense to have the Mass in the vernacular.
I’ve attended many Masses with Latin in the parts of the Mass. It doesn’t add anything, but in fact becomes a distraction.
Jim
S
SimonDodd
Guest
S
SimonDodd
Guest
I think it adds beauty and timelessness. It lifts the Mass out of the moment and makes it a part of the ages in the language used in Christian liturgy for centuries. It makes me feel connected to the Church, universal in space and time, in a way that English (particularly not ICEL “english”) simply can’t do. To recite the kyrie in Greek—the language in which it was composed and in which Christians always and everywhere said it at Mass—is to feel connected to the entire history of the Church and her members.
If the novus ordo is celebrated the way the Council intended it—with the readings and creed in English and much of the rest in latin—it would be a far more beautiful and moving experience. I’m sorry that you find it distracting, but I think that’s less a fault of latin than your attitude toward latin and liturgy.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
SimonDodd
On the other hand, I also attend retreat at another Monastery, where they’ve translated their hymns into English. Its beautiful and there is no distraction as at the other monastery.
As I said, I grew up in the Pre-Vatican II Church. I saw fist hand abuses despite the Masss being the TLM format.
Jim
Really, what does a person with a learning disability, much less one who doesn’t have access to Fr Z’s blog do?
From this, I guess you don’t understand contemplative prayer. When we pray, we turn to God who dwells within. In the presence of God, my mental words to God are in my own language as His are to me.
Oh, I’ve attended more than a few times. In fact, not only was I raised in Pre-Vatican II Church, but over the past 15 years, I’ve attended Mass frequently at a Benedictine Monastery, where they sing in Gregorian Chant. However, its distracting watching these nuns and especially the monks labor through some of the hymns in Latin.
On the other hand, I also attend retreat at another Monastery, where they’ve translated their hymns into English. Its beautiful and there is no distraction as at the other monastery.
Well, when I visited the Religious Shrines of France, back in 1998, I attended Mass everyday and almost all of them were in French. I had no problem understanding where we were in the Mass. The words were in my own mind in English, as the English version of the NO is pretty well implanted into my memory. It wasn’t a distraction, but nothing Latin would solve.
Agreed, same is true for Mass in the vernacular. Just because there are some who have abused the Mass, doesn’t mean the vernacular is the cause.
As I said, I grew up in the Pre-Vatican II Church. I saw fist hand abuses despite the Masss being the TLM format.
Agreed. Latin doesn’t make it better or worse, the person does that.
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
SimonDodd
Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy.
Their intent was to have the people activiely participate in the Mass more fully.
It goes on to say ;
Jim
This sounds like you romanticise the Latin form of the Mass.
So it satisfies your Catholic identity. Sorry, but this isn’t what the Mass is about.
Actually, go back and read the intentions of the Church in the
Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy.
Their intent was to have the people activiely participate in the Mass more fully.
It goes on to say ;
It was through this that the Novus Ordo evolved into what we have today. The Bishops and the Vatican saw the benefit of having the Mass in the Vernacular, and so, it became the norm.
This is the intent of Vatican II, not preserving Latin as an absolute language for Masses said everywhere.
Jim
S
SimonDodd
Guest
In the nineties, I first started to hear—infrequently, happily—of things that had been closed down because they couldn’t be made wheelchair-accessible. Sometimes it was a business, sometimes an historic building or attraction of some kind. You still hear of it happening sometimes—the code demands that it must be handicapped-accessible, it can’t be made so, and an exception won’t be granted. The result is that everyone is poorer.
And I remember thinking to myself from the very first time that the people who would sooner close an attraction from everyone than have anyone excluded were really terrible human beings. Like Simon Hughes, they “would rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich were less rich.” The essence of inclusiveness is to make things accessible to the disabled where possible; but to take that further—to say that if all cannot experience it as fully as anyone else, then no one shall—is a heckler’s veto at best and Harrison Bergeron at worst.
And so it is here. Can your position really be that we should never expand our liturgical horizons beyond the vision of the lowest common denominator? If so, we can look forward to a Mass with all the sacrality and intellectual heft of local newspapers and evening news broadcasts.
Incidentally, my remark about Fr. Zuhlsdorf was somewhat tongue-in-cheek (although his site is a terrific resource), but my curiosity is piqued: how would one both have access to this website yet not to his?
You are presuming a false dichotomy.
How is it “distracting”?
And if “anything distracting must go” is the rule, we need to talk about dress codes at Mass.
So after all that, you’ve basically conceded my point!
I agree with this, so far as it goes, but most priests lack the fluency in latin to improvise. The greater source of abuse isn’t the vernacular, but the attitude of certain people in the postconciliar Church, who seem to have generalized the council into a fictitious “spirit” and concluded that they had all-but free license to indulge themselves. You wouldn’t have seen liturgical dance in the preconciliar liturgy, and that’s not because it was in latin: it’s because of the attitude of the Church at that time. It wouldn’t have occurred to people to engage in that kind of abuse.
(That’s not to say that the Tridentine Mass can’t be abused, of course; I tend to think that barreling through it as if it’s the only thing standing between you and lunch is abuse, too, which happened then and still happens now, on occaision.)
C
Chatter163
Guest
Ridiculous comment. No one ever claimed that.
S
SimonDodd
Guest
Jim, don’t quote Sacrosanctum Concilium at me—I know very well what it says. And if you really must, at least READ it first.
Your response is absolutely typical of a certain kind of viewpoint on V2: you take a general statement from one of the documents, abstract from it, and them eliminate the original text in favor of the abstracted “spirit.” Instead of parsing the meaning of “full active participation” (SC41) in the hope of straining from it an “intent” vis-à-vis latin, why don’t you instead read what the document itself says? “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” (SC36.)
Got that? The council taught that the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.Its intent was that the use of the Latin language [should] be preserved in the Latin rites. Whatever “full active participation” means, you can’t interpret SC41 and 48 sqq. in a way that contradicts SC36, and you certainly can’t do so in a way that blows past the limitations on the use of the vernacular found in SC54.
Your problem is that you are so intent preserving a fictitious interpretation of the council that you have created a totally false dichotomy: the council either did away with latin altogether, or “preserv[ed] Latin as an absolute language for Masses said everywhere.” Of course, both statements are totally false. The council directed that the vernacular could be used in appropriate places, and suggested a few (SC50 et seq.). It did not direct that the entire Mass be in the vernacular, and they clearly saw no tension between latin in the liturgy and your other strawman soldier, their desire to “have the people activiely [sic.] participate in the Mass more fully.”
Your response is absolutely typical of a certain kind of viewpoint on V2: you take a general statement from one of the documents, abstract from it, and them eliminate the original text in favor of the abstracted “spirit.” Instead of parsing the meaning of “full active participation” (SC41) in the hope of straining from it an “intent” vis-à-vis latin, why don’t you instead read what the document itself says? “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” (SC36.)
Got that? The council taught that the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.Its intent was that the use of the Latin language [should] be preserved in the Latin rites. Whatever “full active participation” means, you can’t interpret SC41 and 48 sqq. in a way that contradicts SC36, and you certainly can’t do so in a way that blows past the limitations on the use of the vernacular found in SC54.
Your problem is that you are so intent preserving a fictitious interpretation of the council that you have created a totally false dichotomy: the council either did away with latin altogether, or “preserv[ed] Latin as an absolute language for Masses said everywhere.” Of course, both statements are totally false. The council directed that the vernacular could be used in appropriate places, and suggested a few (SC50 et seq.). It did not direct that the entire Mass be in the vernacular, and they clearly saw no tension between latin in the liturgy and your other strawman soldier, their desire to “have the people activiely [sic.] participate in the Mass more fully.”
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
SimonDodd
There were some extreme circumstances where a building had to be shut down, but for the most part, it was mandated because without the law, business people and politicians merely ignored the need.
My father became paralyzed from the waist down, at the age of 43, back in 1964. At that time, he stayed home because he could not get into buildings, including church, and could not work. As a result, he and my family survived on SSI and VA benefits, which of course the taxpayers funded.
Massachusetts code laws put into place what you see in the 1990’s disability act, back in the late 70’s. As a result, my father could travel to various restaurants and hotels, and he even ended up getting his drivers license. By that time he was too old to begin seeking a job career, but many younger people who became disabled, or were born with disabilities, benefited.
My son now 30 years of age, was born prematurely at 27 weeks, and as a result from the complications from his early birth, developed cerebral palsy. Because of the Disabilities Act, he benefited where generations before him suffered.
What this has to do with people who have learning disabilities not being able to learn the Mass in Latin is beyond me?
It is a fact that there are people with learning disabilities, but why should anyone have to learn a language that is foreign to their own in order to participate in the Mass more fully?
It makes absolutely no sense other than to feed the ego-identities of those who embrace a culture-style of Catholicism which makes them feel unique and separated from others. It may make them feel more Catholic, but how Christian is it to ignore the needs of their brothers and sisters who would have difficulty understanding Latin?
Jim
Huh, everyone became poorer?
There were some extreme circumstances where a building had to be shut down, but for the most part, it was mandated because without the law, business people and politicians merely ignored the need.
My father became paralyzed from the waist down, at the age of 43, back in 1964. At that time, he stayed home because he could not get into buildings, including church, and could not work. As a result, he and my family survived on SSI and VA benefits, which of course the taxpayers funded.
Massachusetts code laws put into place what you see in the 1990’s disability act, back in the late 70’s. As a result, my father could travel to various restaurants and hotels, and he even ended up getting his drivers license. By that time he was too old to begin seeking a job career, but many younger people who became disabled, or were born with disabilities, benefited.
My son now 30 years of age, was born prematurely at 27 weeks, and as a result from the complications from his early birth, developed cerebral palsy. Because of the Disabilities Act, he benefited where generations before him suffered.
What this has to do with people who have learning disabilities not being able to learn the Mass in Latin is beyond me?
It is a fact that there are people with learning disabilities, but why should anyone have to learn a language that is foreign to their own in order to participate in the Mass more fully?
It makes absolutely no sense other than to feed the ego-identities of those who embrace a culture-style of Catholicism which makes them feel unique and separated from others. It may make them feel more Catholic, but how Christian is it to ignore the needs of their brothers and sisters who would have difficulty understanding Latin?
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
R
RobbyS
Guest
That’s how it was rendered in the English translations of the "old mass"back in the '60s. Part of the problem, I suggest, may be that you are not remembering the Bible story.THAT is the context of these words, which came from the mouth of the centurion, whose faith amazed Our Lord,that of a stranger but exceeding that of anyone in Israel.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
SimonDodd
As I pointed out to you in the doctument, it allowed for experiments to be made in the adaptations to the Mass. As it turned out, the Bishops saw that the vernacular was bringing a greater participation of the people in the Mass than Latin, and so it came to be, that Latin is all but excluded in most dioceses of the USA and Canada. I’m sure it s the same in most of Europe and Asia as well.
I agree what the Bishops have done concerning the Mass. You don’t, so the problem is actually yours, not mine.
Jim
I have, several times, you an the Bishops don’t agree, otherwise we’d be hearing the Mass in Latin only. Such is not the case because the Bishops have an understanding of what is needed for the people to participate more fully in the Mass. I leave their actions regarding the liturgy to speak for itself on who understands the document better or not.
Quite the opposite. However, parsing out the statement that Latin should be perserved is what those who advocated for Latin do.
In the general sense that is true, and Latin has been preserved in Mass where the Pope celebrates it before international groups who speak all different languages. It however, does not mandate that Latin remain at all Masses throughout the Catholic world in the Latin Rite.
As I pointed out to you in the doctument, it allowed for experiments to be made in the adaptations to the Mass. As it turned out, the Bishops saw that the vernacular was bringing a greater participation of the people in the Mass than Latin, and so it came to be, that Latin is all but excluded in most dioceses of the USA and Canada. I’m sure it s the same in most of Europe and Asia as well.
Excuse me, but Its not my problem, for I’m not the one who has decided what language the Mass should be in, the Bishops did.
I agree what the Bishops have done concerning the Mass. You don’t, so the problem is actually yours, not mine.
Jim
J
jmcrae
Guest
Yes, if you bulldoze a beautiful building because it can’t be retro-fitted to accommodate wheelchairs, everyone becomes poorer.
Buildings are not private entities; they belong to the communities in which they were built. If someone removes a building, it’s exactly the same as if someone removed an article of heirloom furniture from your house.
If it isn’t being replaced with something better, then yes - you have been robbed. Everyone in the community has been robbed.
This doesn’t mean that buildings shouldn’t be retrofitted to accommodate as many people as possible, but the idea that our history and culture must be thrown on the trash-heap because one person can’t make use of it, is just wrong.
It’s the same with the Latin - even mentally challenged people have the ability to learn a bit of Latin - if they can learn to speak at all, they can learn a bit of Latin. But if we’re going to forbid Latin because one or two people in the community are so severely disabled that they can’t learn a bit of Latin, then the whole community is being robbed (and the people who can’t learn Latin probably aren’t doing all that well with English, either - what do you do in that case?
)- Status