What are the main arguments for using Latin in the Liturgy?

[Brendan]

Both good points mentioned, but

1. MOST of us are not world travelers. Even if I traveled 3 weeks out of the year, I would rather hear Mass in my native tongue 49 times and in a foreign language only three times than in a language that is foreign to me 52 times.

It doesn’t matter if you personally are not a world traveler, what matters is that world travelers, or at least those who are not fluent in English might visit your parish.

The Christian thing, therefore, would be to welcome them and be prepared to worship with them in a common language. Anything less would be rather selfish. It would be pretty much saying to the visitor “So what if you don’t speak our language, we are going to worship in our language alone because we won’t take the time to follow Vatican II and learn the responses in Latin, and if you cannot follow along in our language, tough noggies”

 

[Brendan]

1. In the United States, Latin is not taught in public schools. It’s not even taught in many Catholic high schools. It is a “foreign” language to most of the population.

And…?

I learned the Latin responses ( and the common prayers in Latin) outside of school.

How? Well, the parish my father grew up in was about half Hispanic and the rest Irish or German. They all worshipped together in Latin.

When Vatican II came along, the priest simply switched to saying the new Missal in Latin and everyone continued to worship together.

So when we went to Mass with Grandma ( as we did with some regularity), I picked up all the Latin responses. I learned the prayers of the Rosary in Latin, as we sometimes stayed for Rosary after Mass ( again, said in Latin to accomodate the multi-ethnic base of the parish)

So when I started traveling around the world for work, it was very easy for me to actively and fully participate in Masses in Germany, France, Neitherlands, Brazil, Korea etc…

(and the vast majority of the parishioners at the churches I went to were not world travelers, they just cared more deeply than most about making a visiting world traveler feel welcome

 

[Newbie2]

I don’t think anyone can fully understand the Mass, really. So I don’t think getting the fullness has much to do with understanding the Mass, but to do with being open to God’s presence and action at Mass. This presence and action of Christ at Mass remains the same, regardless of the unfamiliarity of the language, so I don’t think your argument stands either.

But the Mass is not just words, but it includes symbols and other rituals. If the words are unfamiliar, might not the other common symbols and rituals help foster a sense of community?

Yes, that’s true. When I attended the masses in Polish and Spanish that’s exactly what happened.

I do stand by my argument in terms of the liturgy of the Word. If one cannot understand the language, the readings and homily fall on deaf ears. Remember although the Eucharist is the source and summit, the Word is important as well.

 

[japhy]

If one cannot understand the language, the readings and homily fall on deaf ears.

Which is why Catholics should prepare for the Mass more, and better. Even in the vernacular, how many people pay attention to the prayers and the readings and the homily? (Probably the homily gets the most attention, because it’s the longest, whether it’s good or bad!)

Ask a Catholic what the Collect was about. Or the Prayer over the Offerings. Or the Post-Communion. Ask a Catholic what the First, Psalm (hard), Second (harder!), Alleluia verse (hardest, I bet), and Gospel were about.

If people weren’t discouraged from using missals and missallettes (as they are in some places), and if they read the texts of the Mass beforehand (or even afterwards), then there might be some real participation in the Mass, instead of just in-one-ear-out-the-other “hearing” (rather than “listening”).

 

[JRKH]

Both good points mentioned, but

1. MOST of us are not world travelers. Even if I traveled 3 weeks out of the year, I would rather hear Mass in my native tongue 49 times and in a foreign language only three times than in a language that is foreign to me 52 times.

If the mass were said in Latin all of the time, you would quickly learn the prayers. As I mentioned before, We always had a missal with the English translation along with the Latin. Very easy to use - Even for Children. Many - Many Generations of Catholics were raised on Latin Prayer at Mass, in Hymns, etc. The more familiar a thing is the easier it is to learn, be comfortable with and understand.
So you see - If the Mass were still universally in Latin, you would be hearing Mass in a familiar language 52 weeks out of the year whether you travel or not.

1. In the United States, Latin is not taught in public schools. It’s not even taught in many Catholic high schools. It is a “foreign” language to most of the population.

This may be true. But if the need is there, the educational systems could adjust. Also I should point out that the Latin used by the Church is somewhat different than Latin used in other areas.
In the end though it comes down to what one is familiar with and comfortable with.

Peace
James

 

[Brendan]

Which is why Catholics should prepare for the Mass more, and better.

Exactly, when you don’t speak the local language, it is FAR easier to bring along a missal and follow along with the Collect, Readings, Psalm, Gospel etc… that to try and figure out how to say “May the Lord accept your sacrifice…” in Korean

 

[tcm22]

I have no problem with the use of Latin in the Mass, but the argument for unity is a tough one. If unity were an overarching goal then we should probably adopt Spanish as the basis for the Mass.

I’ve attended Mass in English, Spanish, German, and Arabic. Thankfully, I have some background in all those languages, so I was generally aware of where we were in the Mass. I suspect I wouldn’t have much trouble following in the Latin, though it’s awfully hard to meditate on specific parts of the Liturgy when you can’t really understand what’s being said.

Thankfully, the form itself offers a context for worship and thanks regardless of the language used.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The idea that Latin should be used because it makes the Mass universal, in my opinion, is an extremely weak argument. Our unity and oneness does not come from a universal language, it comes from a unity and oneness of faith.

An entire Mass in Latin probably is not something that the overwhelming majority of peoples in most nations want. Mass in the vernacular is a success, to go back on it would not be advisable. Granted there are a sizable minority of Catholics that prefer it all in Latin.

However, that does not mean that certain parts couldn’t be in Latin or that Latin can’t be included in music. It is important to continue the Latin tradition for a few reasons:

1. It is our “heritage” as Catholic similiar (but not exactly the same) to Hebrew for Jews.
2. It is the language of our Chruch.
3. It does add an element of solemnity to the liturgy.

 

[benedictgal]

The idea that Latin should be used because it makes the Mass universal, in my opinion, is an extremely weak argument. Our unity and oneness does not come from a universal language, it comes from a unity and oneness of faith.

An entire Mass in Latin probably is not something that the overwhelming majority of peoples in most nations want. Mass in the vernacular is a success, to go back on it would not be advisable. Granted there are a sizable minority of Catholics that prefer it all in Latin.

However, that does not mean that certain parts couldn’t be in Latin or that Latin can’t be included in music. It is important to continue the Latin tradition for a few reasons:

1. It is our “heritage” as Catholic similiar (but not exactly the same) to Hebrew for Jews.
2. It is the language of our Chruch.
3. It does add an element of solemnity to the liturgy.

Well, that is not quite how the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy puts it:

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Latin is the default; vernacular is the option.

 

[JRKH]

The idea that Latin should be used because it makes the Mass universal, in my opinion, is an extremely weak argument. Our unity and oneness does not come from a universal language, it comes from a unity and oneness of faith.

An entire Mass in Latin probably is not something that the overwhelming majority of peoples in most nations want. Mass in the vernacular is a success, to go back on it would not be advisable. Granted there are a sizable minority of Catholics that prefer it all in Latin.

However, that does not mean that certain parts couldn’t be in Latin or that Latin can’t be included in music. It is important to continue the Latin tradition for a few reasons:

1. It is our “heritage” as Catholic similiar (but not exactly the same) to Hebrew for Jews.
2. It is the language of our Chruch.
3. It does add an element of solemnity to the liturgy.

I probably should not say this because the thread is being so pleasent but I just can’t help but interject here on the Bolded part above.
I was raised during the transition. I can tell you that, at our parish at least the change to the vernacular was not all that welcome particularly by the older generation who were raised on the Latin. Yes the vernacular mass is Accepted now becuase we did not have a choice back then. It was not a case where Latin was said at one mass and English at another. Nope - One week it was ALL Latin and the Next week it was ALL English. Boom - just like that. Of course some folks back then left the Church over it but most, like my parents, accepted it because that was how they were raised, in obedience to Holy Mother Church.

Now, Pope Benedict has clarified and even emphasized that the Older Latin Mass (EF) is still licit and should be offered, and that Latin should be promoted and used in the Pauline Mass (OF). He didn’t “mandate it” He simply urged it strongly.
Oh what lamentations among the faithful - Use Latin and the pews would empty - on and on. Yet when I ran a Poll here some time back asking about what people would do if a Latin mass were made part of their regular sonday schedule, the result was that the Latin Mass would be MORE crowded than the other masses. If your interested, the thread and Poll are here:
**What if “Your” mass time was switched from OF to EF. What would you do? **

Now that I have vented just a little, let me say that, since our Diocese hase been offering a regular Sunday Mass in the EF and I have had the chance to become reaquainted with it I have decided I Like the Beauty and Reverence of the Old Latin Mass on Sunday, but I like the Vernacular mass during the week. In other words the sung prayers and Glory of the Latin High Mass is wonderful and uplifing, while the warm cummunal aspect of the vernacular prayers in a “Low” weekly mass is more inviting.
Each has it’s place.

Peace
James

 

[Tosk]

Have you ever read a poem or song in its original language and then read a translation? A lot of the original is lost in translation. If you really wanted to appreciate a work of art you have to go to the language it was originally written in to really grasp what it is all about.

Although, I have to second what somebody said earlier about hating Latin. I absolutely hate Latin; you have to worry about verb conjugation, noun declension, and three genders. Very irritating. If I had a choice I would much prefer to learn Hebrew, Mandarin, or Japanese. All of those languages are really tough but are still spoken, so you get to use them after you learn them.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But you DON’T have to worry about verb declensions, etc. Nobody is asking the faithful to sit down with the current vernacular order of the Mass and to write out a Latin translation, or to compose our own Latin prayers, or to be able to explain why it’s ex Maria and not de Maria, (or vice versa) and whether it’s a nominative or objective case etc.

Goodness, illiterate serfs and peasants living centuries ago were able to understand that “Pater Noster” was “Our Father”. They might not have been able to write it; they might not have understood that if they were going to say “My Father” it would not be “noster’ which is 'our”. . but they understood it. So can we.

 

[JRKH]

But you DON’T have to worry about verb declensions, etc. Nobody is asking the faithful to sit down with the current vernacular order of the Mass and to write out a Latin translation, or to compose our own Latin prayers, or to be able to explain why it’s ex Maria and not de Maria, (or vice versa) and whether it’s a nominative or objective case etc.

Goodness, illiterate serfs and peasants living centuries ago were able to understand that “Pater Noster” was “Our Father”. They might not have been able to write it; they might not have understood that if they were going to say “My Father” it would not be “noster’ which is 'our”. . but they understood it. So can we.

I second this !!!

Why does would anyone get so uptight like they think they would have to learn to speak fluent Latin?
Heck, I learned the latin Mass by 1) Going with my parents as a small child, 2) being taught the proper responses and translations by the nuns in First communion preperation and 3) Learning the Prayers in preperation to become an Altar Boy.
I never EVER took a “Latin Class”. Altar Boy Candidates received a fold out “card” that contained all of the prayers along side a phonetic pronunciation so that we could learn to say them properly. Translations of all of these prayers were in Any Sunday Missal.
Sadly, in my case, I learned all the prayers in Latin, was heard and approved by Father to serve mass and thene they changed to English less than two weeks later. I never served even one mass in Latin. !! (But I can still say much of the Confiteor Deo)

Peace
James

 

[Tosk]

No you don’t have to speak or understand a language to appreciate its beauty or join in prayer. That is why I really enjoy the Latin mass and also don’t mind joining from time to time at the Vietnamese mass and saying the Lạy Cha Chúng with everyone. I don’t mind attending mass in a difficult and strange language but not everyone is like that.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, but it isn’t the point that “everybody” doesn’t have a predeliction for or appreciation of ‘other languages’.

Like the theatre, the Church is not a democracy.

Certainly it is ‘nice’ for people to be easily able to appreciate Mass in the way they ‘like’. . .but it was never a prerequisite, nor should it be.

As others have noted, use of Latin always was to be retained for set portions of the liturgy and the faithful was to learn those portions. Just as they have always done–whether it was the faithful speaking langue d’oil learning Latin, or the faithful speaking Aramaic learning Greek, or anything else. There was always, from the beginning, the knowledge that there were people of many different ‘tongues’ who were Christians, and the liturgy was, and I think quite correctly, held in the tongue that was A. Most common for all ‘educated’ people, primarily because that was the tongue in which everything from literature to science to business to socialization was conducted and B. The language which by nature of A was most clearly suited to and capable of expressing the nuances.

Now people may argue that Spanish or English is now more widely ‘spoken’ by numbers of peoples, but neither Spanish nor English is the predominance for all the above. German I believe is more highly used for technology, for example. The classic or even Koine Greek would be possible for a liturgy but the Latin has a longer history in the Latin rite; it contains a great number of prayers etc. already so there is no need to ‘reinvent the wheel’. It is also unchanging and so as I noted there are no clunky or cumbersome or tiresome examples of seeing a word used 200 years ago to mean something which ‘current modern usage’ today uses in an entirely different way.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Latin is the default; vernacular is the option.

Yes, but that’s not the issue at hand. What’s being discussed is what language the Mass is said in. Currently the Mass is said in approved translations.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I was raised during the transition. I can tell you that, at our parish at least the change to the vernacular was not all that welcome particularly by the older generation who were raised on the Latin. Yes the vernacular mass is Accepted now becuase we did not have a choice back then.

Well, here in New England while there were (and still are) pockets of people who hate the “new Mass”, overall the vernacular was happily received.

Now, Pope Benedict has clarified and even emphasized that the Older Latin Mass (EF) is still licit and should be offered, and that Latin should be promoted and used in the Pauline Mass (OF). He didn’t “mandate it” He simply urged it strongly.

No one has said it isn’t a licit Mass. However, the overwhelming majority of people attend Mass in the vernacular and not in the Latin even when given the choice.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And when the approved translations do (as they have for centuries) become revised and the latest approved translations call for Latin at particular points, I’m sure you’ll accept them, just as those of us who went from the EF back when it was “the” only Mass directly to full-on vernacular accepted. . .(FWIW, MOST of us, even if we would have preferred the way we knew and loved, accepted the change without demur–and that change, even if approved, was obviously not meant to stand in stone forever).

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And the OF is not going to be a “Latin Mass” like the EF.

It is simply going to be what it was always supposed to be: A Mass in which parts will be in Latin as was always intended for good and sufficient reason, and in which parts will be said in the vernacular.

Nobody is trying to make the vernacular Mass into a Latin Mass. What they are trying to do is correct the unfortunate error made some 40 years ago in which ALL Latin was removed when it should not have been.

 

[thunderballs75]

Indeed, there is no Church document which says or approves of the Mass being said entirely in the vernacular.