Vatican II liturgical reform ‘irreversible,’ pope says

[Samuel_Mary]

I would disagree about Latin in the Mass. There is no reason not to have Latin Mass, especially since the Latin Mass is still the normative Mass. All one needs is a Latin/English Missal.

I do not know Latin and I get along fine in a Latin Mass.

The re-elevation of Latin in the Mass Ordinary of the Ordinary Form, is in fact essential for the Church’s catholicity. Despite the gifts of the Ordinary Form, one thing that has been lost during the transition to it is the fullness of the universal nature of the liturgy of the Roman Rite. One used to be able to go to Mass in Lagos or in Hong Kong and feel more or less as oriented as they would at home. That would be the case again if we would do the Mass Ordinary in Latin, at least on Sundays. Perhaps also for the dialogue/ responses on solemnities.

The common Latin language encourages a bond of brotherhood between Catholics of all countries, rich and poor, far and wide.

The problem is that perhaps memory of the pre-reform period has to pass before we can change attitudes to Latin. People will then come to see it not as a mysterious and alien language that shuts them out of the litugy, but as their liturgical language in which is expressed their universality of rite, their brotherhood with their fellows Catholics and not least, their intimacy with Almighty God, for whose worship this language is set aside in their lives.

The argument that people won’t understand the words of the Sanctus and Gloria in Latin when they say them every single week, and read from a Missal with both languages side by side, is just nonsensical.

We have failed Vatican II when it comes to Latin. It should play a greater role in the reformed liturgy, where it can do all kinds of good without impeding active and conscious participation, if it is employed proportionally and only to the unchanging parts of the Mass.

‘‘Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.’’

Completion the liturgical reform of Vatican II as referred to by the Holy Father this week, must involve this. Otherwise we have only a ‘partial revelation’

 

[pnewton]

PN, it depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. Your namesake Sir Isaac wrote his most important work(s) in Latin which are preserved in that language to this day. Yes, he would have reached more English-speaking people had he written in English but Newton (along with Kepler, Galileo, et al) wanted (1) to reach ALL the scholars in the world and (2) to avoid mistranslations. Wasn’t the IGMR written for the bishops of the world and not the congregations? .

The last part of that sentence was, " as it is to say the Mass in Latin in most parishes." Most parish Masses are not broadcast to the world at large, but are structured to the best interest of a specific community. So while scholarly work may be written in Latin, if it is used in a specific location, a translation would serve better. Few Junior High School students would benefit from hearing, “Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus illud a viribus impressis cogitur statum suum mutare.”

 

[pnewton]

I would disagree about Latin in the Mass. There is no reason not to have Latin Mass, especially since the Latin Mass is still the normative Mass. All one needs is a Latin/English Missal.

I do not know Latin and I get along fine in a Latin Mass.

Good for you. That may work for you and others. However, I note that most bishops and priests see the vernacular as more useful in the vast majority of cases, so you might be in the minority.

And there are plenty of reasons not to have the Mass in Latin. Not everyone reads proficiently, for one. Hearing is more conducive to learning for some people, for another. Latin will likely always be the norm, as in the standard across the world. I seriously doubt it will ever be the norm, as in the most common.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The common Latin language encourages a bond of brotherhood between Catholics of all countries, rich and poor, far and wide.

’

The only common bond was that the laity were equally disconnected with the Mass. The Mass prayers were said by the priest and altar boys and the people sat and stared.

You mentioned Hong Kong, and it reminds me of how the Vatican once held that nothing of Chinese culture could be brought into the celebration of the Mass.

Thankfully, that was lifted and Chinese can and do bring their culture into parts of the Mass without changing the consecration itself.

Jim

 

[NonTimendum]

Nothing made by man is irreversible.

 

[edwest2]

The only common bond was that the laity were equally disconnected with the Mass. The Mass prayers were said by the priest and altar boys and the people sat and stared.

You mentioned Hong Kong, and it reminds me of how the Vatican once held that nothing of Chinese culture could be brought into the celebration of the Mass.

Thankfully, that was lifted and Chinese can and do bring their culture into parts of the Mass without changing the consecration itself.

Jim

I have no idea where some people went to Church before Vatican II. It was mandatory at our Catholic school to go to Mass one day a week (not counting Sunday), it was in Latin and we responded in Latin. There were parts where we all kneeled, all stood and all sang. Our participation was quite active and we knew what was going on.

Ed

 

[Samuel_Mary]

The only common bond was that the laity were equally disconnected with the Mass. The Mass prayers were said by the priest and altar boys and the people sat and stared.

Deficiencies of the form that was used at the time aside, nonetheless, the Mass-going experience was universal. That there were also problems which hindered the conscious participation of the laity is another issue, which we don’t have today in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. We’re not discussing the Vetus Ordo but how we can imbue universality and brotherhood in the Latin rite in our time, in our current liturgy.

I also do not contend that the prayers (collect, bidding prayers, Eucharistic prayer) should be in Latin at all, as that is clearly not most profitable to the faithful - rather just the Mass Ordinary - Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei and maybe the dialogue/responses.

This doesn’t necessarily mean ‘‘all the time’’ the point is more of a Renaissance of Latin in the life and culture of the Church, in line with our current liturgical culture and theology, and seeing where exactly that takes us - the aim being a place of union and global Catholic brotherhood. If we have to arrive there incrementally then so be it.

You mentioned Hong Kong, and it reminds me of how the Vatican once held that nothing of Chinese culture could be brought into the celebration of the Mass.

Thankfully, that was lifted and Chinese can and do bring their culture into parts of the Mass without changing the consecration itself.

Jim

That sounds interesting, what do they do differently? I’m not against leaving room for inculturation per se; reflecting the local culture simply has to be prudently balanced with reflecting the norms of the Latin rite.

 

[pnewton]

This doesn’t necessarily mean ‘‘all the time’’ the point is more of a Renaissance of Latin in the life and culture of the Church, in line with our current liturgical culture and theology, and seeing where exactly that takes us - the aim being a place of union and global Catholic brotherhood. If we have to arrive there incrementally then so be it.

This is sort of the approach we have taken in my own parish. My priest uses Latin on Fridays of Lent primarily as preparation for Holy Thursday, as we are heavily bilingual and on that day there is but the one Mass. Then we use Latin for that Mass with the Jubilate Dei chants. In English, we have the same chant in English to prep us for it, and for a sense of Lent.

I only mentioned this because it does work for a bilingual parish.

 

[EIF5A]

Our noon Mass sings in Latin (well, the Gloria, Creed, and Agnes Dei).

Are we going backwards?

 

[OraLabora]

Our noon Mass sings in Latin (well, the Gloria, Creed, and Agnes Dei).

Are we going backwards?

No. It is perfectly in keeping with the liturgical reforms implemented by Vatican II.

 

[twf]

This was never true. Again, I was there.

Ed

The Low Mass was and is a stripped down version of the High Mass. The liturgical ideal in the traditional Roman Rite was the Pontifical High Mass at the Throne…that was the pinnacle… From a liturgical standpoint, a Low Mass was never considered the liturgical ideal, especially not for Sundays or other solemn occasions. Note that “not the ideal” does not equate to wrong.
At our cathedral we have 7 regularly scheduled Sunday Masses. The 11 AM Mass best reflects the liturgical ideal: the bishop (if he’s available) assisted by priests and a deacon…chant…incense…beautiful polyphonic choir. The 8 PM Mass, on the other hand, is usually spoken, no choir, no deacon assisting the celebrant, etc. etc. There’s nothing wrong with the latter, but it doesn’t reflect the Church’s ideal of a solemn liturgy. Its the modern equivalent of a Low Mass in that its "bare bones’ and spoken, not sung, but of course the congregation gives responses and the priest doesn’t speak inaudibly.

 

[Samuel_Mary]

No. It is perfectly in keeping with the liturgical reforms implemented by Vatican II.

Exactly

It’s unfortunate that some have a knee-jerk reaction against even a measured use of Latin, apparently due to a suspicion that’s an attempt to take us backwards in contempt of the liturgical reforms.

*Sacrosanctum Concillium * recognised both the value of Latin and the imperative of engaging the people in the liturgy in their vernacular tongue. We also should uphold both then as we live out the VII reform.

 

[Samuel_Mary]

This is sort of the approach we have taken in my own parish. My priest uses Latin on Fridays of Lent primarily as preparation for Holy Thursday, as we are heavily bilingual and on that day there is but the one Mass. Then we use Latin for that Mass with the Jubilate Dei chants. In English, we have the same chant in English to prep us for it, and for a sense of Lent.

I only mentioned this because it does work for a bilingual parish.

This is the sort of thing I’m talking about, Latin *uniting *rather than excluding.

As at a parochial level, also on a global one.

Our Latin language, deployed in a predictable and proportionate way brings Catholics together over a common bond, without impeding understanding.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I have no idea where some people went to Church before Vatican II. It was mandatory at our Catholic school to go to Mass one day a week (not counting Sunday), it was in Latin and we responded in Latin. There were parts where we all kneeled, all stood and all sang. Our participation was quite active and we knew what was going on.

Ed

I don’t recall the people having response in the Latin Mass before Vatican II.

All responses were done by the altar boys.

There was a choir which sang the songs in Latin, or as in my case when I went to Catholic School, the children sang the hymns in Latin.

It was all very disconnecting over all, which is why Pope Francis is asking to look back at Vatican II and understand WHY the reforms were called for.

Jim

 

[Samuel_Mary]

I don’t recall the people having response in the Latin Mass before Vatican II.

All responses were done by the altar boys.

There was a choir which sang the songs in Latin, or as in my case when I went to Catholic School, the children sang the hymns in Latin.

It was all very disconnecting over all, which is why Pope Francis is asking to look back at Vatican II and understand WHY the reforms were called for.

Jim

And indeed we can look back, see why the reforms were necessary, and not seek to emulate the Vetus Ordo at all but rather seek to bring out the fullness of Catholic faith in our reformed liturgy, informed by Vatican II as we do so.

That includes seeing where we can include Latin, to the benefit rather than the detriment of the faithful, in a way which emphasises of our universality of rite but does not hinder full, active and conscious participation in the liturgy. It’s clearly important not to create an experience like the Low Tridentine Masses of old which you speak of. That would be contrary to the clear and consistent aims of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

But it does not mean that it is good to go the other extreme and entirely kill off the sacred language of Latin in our reformed liturgy. There can absolutely be a role for Latin in the post-concilliar worship life of the Church. This is allowed for, indeed arguably envisaged, by Sacrosanctum Concilium and is not something like a ‘reform of the reform’, but rather a full realisation of the liturgical reform in compliance with the constitution which directs it.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Good for you. That may work for you and others. However, I note that most bishops and priests see the vernacular as more useful in the vast majority of cases, so you might be in the minority.

Well, the Holy See says that the Latin is to be preserved. I think that opinion is greater. The claim to illiteracy is a weak one. There are very few who cannot read. The Latin was used for centuries without a problem.

When I attend a Mass in Latin, without a English/Latin missal, I still have no problem. This argument of Latin vs. vernacular is a false one.

 

[ProVobis]

Good for you. That may work for you and others. However, I note that most bishops and priests see the vernacular as more useful in the vast majority of cases, so you might be in the minority.

And there are plenty of reasons not to have the Mass in Latin. Not everyone reads proficiently, for one. Hearing is more conducive to learning for some people, for another. Latin will likely always be the norm, as in the standard across the world. I seriously doubt it will ever be the norm, as in the most common.

The most common I believe is Spanish.

At least knowing a little Latin may help you there.

 

[BroIgnatius]

The re-elevation of Latin in the Mass Ordinary of the Ordinary Form, is in fact essential for the Church’s catholicity. Despite the gifts of the Ordinary Form, one thing that has been lost during the transition to it is the fullness of the universal nature of the liturgy of the Roman Rite. One used to be able to go to Mass in Lagos or in Hong Kong and feel more or less as oriented as they would at home. That would be the case again if we would do the Mass Ordinary in Latin, at least on Sundays. Perhaps also for the dialogue/ responses on solemnities.

The common Latin language encourages a bond of brotherhood between Catholics of all countries, rich and poor, far and wide.

The argument that people won’t understand the words of the Sanctus and Gloria in Latin when they say them every single week, and read from a Missal with both languages side by side, is just nonsensical.

We have failed Vatican II when it comes to Latin. It should play a greater role in the reformed liturgy, where it can do all kinds of good without impeding active and conscious participation, if it is employed proportionally and only to the unchanging parts of the Mass.

‘‘Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.’’

Completion the liturgical reform of Vatican II as referred to by the Holy Father this week, must involve this. Otherwise we have only a ‘partial revelation’

I agree completely

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And indeed we can look back, see why the reforms were necessary, and not seek to emulate the Vetus Ordo at all but rather seek to bring out the fullness of Catholic faith in our reformed liturgy, informed by Vatican II as we do so.

That includes seeing where we can include Latin, to the benefit rather than the detriment of the faithful, in a way which emphasises of our universality of rite but does not hinder full, active and conscious participation in the liturgy. It’s clearly important not to create an experience like the Low Tridentine Masses of old which you speak of. That would be contrary to the clear and consistent aims of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

But it does not mean that it is good to go the other extreme and entirely kill off the sacred language of Latin in our reformed liturgy. There can absolutely be a role for Latin in the post-concilliar worship life of the Church. This is allowed for, indeed arguably envisaged, by Sacrosanctum Concilium and is not something like a ‘reform of the reform’, but rather a full realisation of the liturgical reform in compliance with the constitution which directs it.

In home parishes there is no need to see where we can include Latin. What for ?

Mass is to be celebrated so people of all levels of intellect can participate.

Add Latin at a Mass in an English speaking parish and you begin to leave people behind with regards to participation.

Understanding Latin my be easy for you, but it’s not for others, trust me.

At the Vatican when Mass is celebrated with people from all various parts of the world, Latin makes sense, but then, English is more widely understood than Latin is.

Jesus didn’t institute the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharists to make people feel more Catholic.

He did so as a sacrifice that would endure for all time for all people of faith.

Jim

 

[BroIgnatius]

Latin is normative and missals exist that have the Latin and English on the same page. I was there. To say otherwise is false.
Ed

You have misread my post. I did not say otherwise. In fact, what you said, quoted above, is exactly my point.