I don’t know about suffer, but I can think of plenty of reasons to use the vernacular. People understand their own language, they think and reason in it. Why should our worship not be understood by us and thus possibly more deeply integrated into our very beings?
I’m not entirely certain that you can say that the Church was united by Latin (the Church was simply united and the Church still IS). And it lacks nothing in a healthy attitude toward Christ to want to find strength or solace in the Mass (which could be seen as “taking something away”) nor is it objectively demonstrable that Latin is something “better” that we can give Christ. I don’t think anyone wants to wish away the fact that Latin is the official language of the Church, I don’t think people think about it that much. As for people reflecting on it, I have. I still think the vernacular Mass makes pefect sense, for day in day out (ie, non-international) worship.
Then you have the situation of a multicultural and multi linguistic congregation as is normally the case these days, particularly in the United States. Which language does the Priest use? English, Spanish, Tagalog, Vietnamese, etc etc? At my home Parish, the congregation is split about evenly into the above groups. Yet all Masses are in English except for one Spanish one. Non English and non Spanish speakers, of which we have a lot due to a large number of elderly and recent immigrants, are effectively frozen out. I faced exactly the same situation as a young man. I spoke little English, a few swear words
and a few basic phrases. Other than that zip, nada. Yet I could serve Mass and knew what was going on as I had learned that back home as the Mass was in Latin.How average is your parish, Palamas? I’m talking about the average parish. And DEMONSTRATE that Latin unified the Church. It wasn’t a matter of us all speaking the same language (it wasn’t even a matter of being able to hear the Mass in the same language, as there were huge sections of it that you couldn’t hear at all).Then you have the situation of a multicultural and multi linguistic congregation as is normally the case these days, particularly in the United States. Which language does the Priest use? English, Spanish, Tagalog, Vietnamese, etc etc? At my home Parish, the congregation is split about evenly into the above groups. Yet all Masses are in English except for one Spanish one. Non English and non Spanish speakers, of which we have a lot due to a large number of elderly and recent immigrants, are effectively frozen out. I faced exactly the same situation as a young man. I spoke little English, a few swear words
Latin** did** put the faithful on a level playing field, and made the **essential **parts of the Mass accesible and understandable to everyone no matter where they were/ It was all the same.
Quite true the sermon might not reach everyone but the main thrust of the Mass is not the sermon. It never has been. It is the sacrifice and the consecration. The sermon can be omitted with no real long lasting ill effects on the Mass itself.
To say Latin did not unify the Church is just plain wrong Kirk. I know you love the vernacular Mass and will never change your ideas about it. But overall, the use of Latin for the essential parts of the Mass was a great advantage and still would be.
I think that what you’re talking about is the difference in spirituality between the traditional and NO Masses. There are very good reasons why the Mass shouldn’t be in the vernacular as there are that it should be. Ultimately, the prayers of the Mass are offered to God, not the people. Their understanding of it doesn’t NECESSARILY help them to assist the priest at Mass. For example, many people at vernacular Masses try to listen carefully to the priest’s words and make the responses with devotion, but many simply respond instinctively and by rote. Conversely, many people at the traditional Mass assuredly daydream during the Mass, but, having the Mass in a dead language forces those who are trying to reverently and closely follow the Mass to pay even closer attention to the words and actions of the priest or else they’ll be hopelessly lost. As far as spirituality, one of the things that I like about having the Mass in Latin – in addition to the fact that it makes the Mass even more awe-inspiring and mysterious and has been the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church for 1500 years (admittedly, these two arguments might be somewhat more emotional and sentimental rather than completely reasonable and objective) – is that you have more freedom in how you participate in the Mass. At Mass, I’m mystically present at Calvary. I have the opportunity to catch Our Lord at His most vulnerable, so to speak, when he’s re-presenting His sacrifice to the Father. Sometimes you just want to meditate on this and speak to Our Lord lovingly as a friend. Constantly having to make responses and hearing the priest speak in the vernacular can distract from that. The spirituality of the vernacular NO Mass is different (although still beautiful). There’s more uniformity in the participation of the faithful and more of an emphasis placed on “what I have to do.” I fully understand how the vernacular can help some people hear Mass more attentively and reverently. But I think there are also crucial reasons as to why Mass in a Latin… a different language than that in which the congregation thinks and speaks… can enhance the one’s attendance at Mass.
This is a rhetorical question rather than an actual inquiry. Here’s how I translate its assertion: The Latin Mass is nonsensical.
I think Mass was in Latin because when they switched from the Greek, they did so so that a larger number people would understand it (the “vernacular” argument). Certainly they didn’t do it in base, “street” Latin, but the people would more than likely have gotten it. The Church didn’t originally make the switch in search of a “better” liturgical language (they had one, no more or less “dead” than the one it replaced, at least at that time).
Then I would attempt to locate a community college class on “reading for meaning,” as that is not what I said. We were asked to “reflect on” the role of Latin. I did. As I said, we could also make a reflection on how much sense it makes in, let’s say, Jefferson, Iowa, at Saint Joseph’s Catholic Church, for the English-speaking priest to address God in a foreign language while his English-speaking congregation follows along, reading a translation of what he is saying in English. If we’re going to reflect, then let’s reflect.This is a rhetorical question rather than an actual inquiry. Here’s how I translate its assertion: The Latin Mass is nonsensical.
You know, Alex, you really need to ponder how well bitterness works as a spiritual discipline.
Well, I must respectfully point out that you don’t seem to appreciate the spirituality of Mass in a sacred dead language (probably not any more than I appreciate the spirituality of the vernacular Mass). “Holy things for the holy” as they say in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It might very well be that use of Latin in Mass was originally a concession to the people of that time to hear Mass in their language, but decisions frequently have side effects – good and bad – that aren’t always apparent at the time. As Latin fell into disuse it was transformed into a sacred language… one that belonged virtually to God alone. It became the liturgical language of the Roman Catholic Church. When entering a church and hearing the Latin, the congregation realized they had left the outside world and entered into a sacred space where the outside rules didn’t always apply. It was different. I’d argue, for what my untrained opinion is worth, that the spirituality of the Latin Mass is more contemplative and the spirituality of the NO is more active (although neither Mass is completely one or the other). I think that the arguments between Latin and the vernacular really comes down to what type of spirituality one prefers.
In response, I wrote:
JKirkLVNV disagrees with this interpretation of his words, and implies I don’t read well. Now I’m curious. Does anyone else feel I’ve misinterpreted JKirkLVNV?This is a rhetorical question rather than an actual inquiry. Here’s how I translate its assertion: The Latin Mass is nonsensical.
You’ve accused me of saying that the Latin Mass is nonsensical. I never said that. I wouldn’t say that about the Mass at all, in Latin or otherwise. The Mass is celebrated at the Holy See (broadcast on TV) in Latin. I would certainly not call that non-sensical. But here, in the context of this thread, there is an assumption made that people just accept that Latin is “holier” or “better” or “more fitting for the worship of God.” We’ were asked to “reflect” on that. I simply offered and still offer something else for reflection on this topic.
Sir Galahad: Thank you for your thoughtful and courteous response. No, I frankly don’t “appreciate the spirituality” of the dead language argument, though I appreciate that others feel differently. I don’t believe that one language is inherently superior to another or more sacred, though I totally agree that Latin has an ascribed sacral quality (ie, it is sacred because we have used it for generations to described and discuss sacred things; it is not ontologically sacred). I’m not saying Latin is bad or non-sensical, contrary to what one person misunderstood me to say and contrary to the bad motive of which I’m accused by another, I’m saying that it has it’s place and I’m not sure that in terms of benefits on a weight scale that that place is the day-in, day-out use in your typical parish church. I think it is entirely to the benefit of the laity that they can understand the words of the Holy Sacrifice, that it is good for them hear and comprehend those words. I know that that has borne fruit in my life, as the words of the Mass have come to me and helped me face temptation, given me strength, etc.
I’m not trying to be difficult or rude, but I must point out a couple of disagreements with your post. No, Latin isn’t ontologically sacred. Neither is Hebrew, Church Slavonic, Ge’ez, Arabic, or Elizabethan English, but various religions identify them as such due to their tradition. For that matter, the Cross itself is meaningless as a symbol unless you understand the reason why Catholics venerate it We all can agree that various cultures adopt certain myths and symbols to embody important truths to them. Those myths and symbols take on their important character on account of the meaning behind them and, hallowed by decades or centuries of use, they become part of the consciousness of the group to which they belong. I’d argue the same with Latin… not intrinsically holy or liturgical, but made such by 1500 years of use in the Roman Catholic Church. For these centuries, products of Catholic culture saw a symbol of unity, universality, and sacredness. It was born into them and part of the Catholic identity in a very special way. Yes, in many ways it’s an external, but any perusal of posts on this board show that there are internal benefits that many people find in the use of Latin as well. You’re spiritually nourished by Mass in the vernacular. I’m happy for you, but the tradition of the Roman rite is for Mass at least partially in Latin. The Church in Her wisdom must have a very good reason for that. In addition, I agree with you that the spirituality of the Mass is affected by the location, celebrant, and congregation. But if the spirituality of the traditional and NO Masses weren’t different… well, we wouldn’t have the disagreements that are so rife on this board. My comment was a generalization more than anything else, but I do believe there’s a great deal of truth to it.