What is the point of using Latin?

[StTommyMore]

Without externals, there is no Mass.

Are you saying that without Latin the Mass is invalid?

 

[ProVobis]

Are you saying that without Latin the Mass is invalid?

The approved texts must be followed for validity, Latin or otherwise.

 

[StTommyMore]

The approved texts must be followed for validity, Latin or otherwise.

This is true, but Layman was implying that the Latin is required for validity, and given the links in his sig, I am not surprised.

 

[Damase]

Without externals, there is no Mass.

Are you saying that without Latin the Mass is invalid?

StTommyMore, do you actually think that Layman was implying that “without Latin the Mass is invalid”?

All he said is that the externals make the Mass. This is true. Sacraments are external signs, and the externals are important. (E.g., if the words of consecration are not said, for example, the Mass is invalid.)

I really doubt Layman thinks that the language of the Mass has anything to do with its validity. Are you reading him charitably or trying to trap him by twisting his words?

… given the links in his sig, I am not surprised.

Are you implying that he is a sedevacantist? That’s just an ad hominem attack.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The approved texts must be followed for validity, Latin or otherwise.

Not true. There are many cases where there’s an abuse and the words have been changed to a certain extent. The Mass is still valid while illicit.

 

[StTommyMore]

StTommyMore, do you actually think that Layman was implying that “without Latin the Mass is invalid”?

All he said is that the externals make the Mass. This is true. Sacraments are external signs, and the externals are important. (E.g., if the words of consecration are not said, for example, the Mass is invalid.)

I really doubt Layman thinks that the language of the Mass has anything to do with its validity. Are you reading him charitably or trying to trap him by twisting his words?

Are you implying that he is a sedevacantist? That’s just an ad hominem attack.

It is not an ad hominem to attempt to discern the position your opponent is operating from, in this case, that he is a radical traditionalist that does not understand that the Second Vatican Council was a gift from the Church to the world, and to deny its authority, while maintaining the authority of Trent and Vatican I is ultimately illogical. With this information, I can now understand that he is attempting to live in the Church if yesterday, rather than the Church of today. This is valuable information when engaging in debate, don’t you think?

 

[crazzeto]

It is not an ad hominem to attempt to discern the position your opponent is operating from, in this case, that he is a radical traditionalist that does not understand that the Second Vatican Council was a gift from the Church to the world, and to deny its authority, while maintaining the authority of Trent and Vatican I is ultimately illogical. With this information, I can now understand that he is attempting to live in the Church if yesterday, rather than the Church of today. This is valuable information when engaging in debate, don’t you think?

There’s a lot of this going on in Traditional Catholisism sadly enough. The traditional Catholic could be such an asset to the Church of today, providing a anchor point, a grounding to our historical past for the modern lay faithful.

Instead many choose to moach the church of today, and the modern lay believer. Rather than work with the Church, helping to keep alive the traditions of the past, so they can be integrated into the modern age, they simply skoff at anything to do with “that evil council” and shun the rest of the Church.

If you can’t tell, I’m perhaps wounded by the behaviour on a little more personal level because I too much prefer the traditions of the past. But I prefer them with the understanding that I just provided, to work with and build up the Kingdom of God such as it is today, not to become a tool of he would destroy it.

 

[GloriousOrder]

Well, since both sides of this debate are very convincing, I’ll just go with my bias. All Masses should be T.L.M. because I say so! Anyway, even if the Ordinary Form was always in Latin I’d be happy. The ancient language appeals to my fetish for ancient, venerable monuments that sound dusty. Obviously there is no worship or respect due to anything alone, divorced from God; however, when all things are equal I will follow that which most singularly visits my imagination with blessed visions of the Lord. Latin achieves this in me, and if Taiwanese does it for you, then go forth and praise God all your days in Taiwanese, but don’t ask me to do it because I won’t glorify God in Taiwanese as well as I do in Latin!

There seems to be a lot of curmudgeonly behaviour on both sides. I absolutely can’t stand vitriol or sarcasm. Really, now!

 

[stevusmagnus]

sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-5.htm

We are also criticized for being attached to external forms of secondary importance, like Latin. This is a dead language, they tell us, which no one understands–as if Christians understood it in the sixteenth or nineteenth centuries. Such negligence on the part of the Church (in this view) in waiting so long to get rid of Latin! I think the Church had her reasons. Yet we should not be surprised that Catholics feel the need of a greater understanding of the sacred texts, from which they draw spiritual nourishment, and that they want to be more intimately involved in the action taking place in front of them.

It was not to satisfy these desires, however, that the vernacular was introduced from one end of the Holy Sacrifice to the other. Reading the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular is an improvement and is practised at St. Nicholas du Chardonnet in Paris and in the priories of the Society which I founded. To go any further would mean losing far more than would be gained, because understanding the texts is not the ultimate purpose of prayer, nor even the only means of putting the soul in a state of prayer, i.e., in union with God. If too much attention is given to the meaning of the words, they can even be an obstacle.

I am surprised that this is not understood, especially when we hear so much talk these days about a religion of the heart, less intellectual and more spontaneous. Union with God can be achieved as much by beautiful, heavenly music as by the general ambiance of liturgical action: the sanctity and religious feel of the place, or its architectural beauty, or the fervor of the Christian community, or the dignity and devotion of the celebrant, or symbolic decorations, or the fragrance of the incense. Moving about is unimportant, as long as the soul is uplifted. All you need to prove this is to go into a Benedictine monastery which has kept the divine worship in all its splendor.

But this does not lessen in the least the need to seek a better understanding of the prayers and hymns as well as a more perfect participation. But it is a mistake to try to reach the goal purely and simply by bringing in the vernacular and totally suppressing the universal language of the Church, as has unfortunately happened almost everywhere in the world. We need only look at the success of Masses, even in the Novus Ordo rite, which have kept the chant for the Credo, the Sanctus, or the Agnus Dei.

Latin is a universal language. In using it, the liturgy forms us into a universal, i.e., Catholic, communion. By contrast, localizing and individualizing the liturgy robs it of this dimension which can make such a deep impression on souls. To avoid making such a mistake, it should be enough to observe the Eastern rites, in which the liturgical action has long been couched in the vernacular. And there, an isolation can be seen–from which members of these communities suffer. When they scatter far and wide from their homelands, they need their own priests for the Mass, the sacraments and ceremonies of all kinds. They build special churches, which, in the nature of things, separate them from the rest of the Catholic population.

What do they gain from this? It is not entirely clear that having their own liturgical language has made them more fervent in practising their faith than people benefitting from a universal language, not understood by man, perhaps, but easy enough to translate.

If we look outside the Church, we may ask how Islam has succeeded in keeping its cohesiveness while spreading over regions as different and among peoples of such diverse races as in Turkey, North Africa, Indonesia and black Africa. It has succeeded in imposing Arabic everywhere as the single language of the Koran. In Africa, I saw marabouts teachings children to recite the sacred texts by heart when they could not understand a single word of them. Islam goes so far as to forbid the translation of this holy book. It is fashionable these days to admire the religion of Mohammed: thousands of French people, it is said, are converting to it and taking up collections in the churches to build mosques in France. We would do well, however, simply to take note of one example which we should remember: the sustaining power of a single language for prayer and worship.

 

[stevusmagnus]

The fact that Latin is a dead language is in its favor: it is the best means of protecting the expression of faith against linguistic changes which take place naturally in the course of time. The study of semantics has developed rapidly in the last ten years or so: it has even been introduced into French language courses in the schools. Semantics investigates changes in the meaning of words, the gradual shift of signification in the passage of time and often over very short periods. Let us make use of this branch of knowledge, therefore, to understand the danger of handing over the deposit of faith to changing ways of speaking. Do you believe that we could have kept intangible, eternal truths free of corruption for two thousand years if they were expressed in languages that are constantly evolving and which differ from one country and even from one region to another? Living languages change and fluctuate. If we put the liturgy into any one of them at any time, we will have to be continually adapting according to semantic requirements. So it is not surprising that there must be endless committees set up for this, and that priests no longer have time to say Mass.

When I went to see His Holiness Pope Paul VI at Castelgandolfo in 1976, I said to him, “I do not know if you are aware, Your Holiness, that there are now officially thirteen Eucharistic prayers in France.” The Pope raised his arms heavenward and exclaimed, “More than that, Your Excellency, more than that!” This gives me the basis for asking, would there be so many if the liturgists were required to compose in Latin? Besides these formulas put into circulation–after being printed here, there or anywhere–we would have to mention also the canons improvised by the priest during the celebration and everything he introduces from the “penitential preparation” to the “dismissal of the assembly.” Do you think he could do this if he had to officiate in Latin?

 

[ingoodfaith]

Not true. There are many cases where there’s an abuse and the words have been changed to a certain extent. The Mass is still valid while illicit.

Without the exact wording as prescribed the Consecration is invalid. Period.

 

[MarkThompson]

Without the exact wording as prescribed the Consecration is invalid. Period.

That is not correct:
If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.
De Defectibus V.1 (no. 20).

 

[ProVobis]

Without the exact wording as prescribed the Consecration is invalid. Period.

I believe that now extends to the entire Canon/Eucharistic Prayer. There is at least one Rite (Chaldean) which has no “words” of Consecration.

 

[Timothy17]

That is not correct:
If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.
De Defectibus V.1 (no. 20).

So, messing with the words of cosecration is no different or better for a priest than murdering someone or shuffling off into the night to sell consecrated hosts to Satanists for a Black Mass or joining a Masonic lodge.

Mark, I think you are pulling hairs here. The priest entertaining a lap-dance at some point in the Mass would probably constitute “committing a grave sin,” but would it effect the validity of the consecration, ceteris paribus ? Do we really want to go into the Twilight Zone ?

I have thought long and hard about this thread, and here’s my conclusion :

THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH prefers Latin.

/End debate.

No one man prefers it, and it wouldn’t matter even if every man did : It wouldn’t matter if one man disagreed, or every man disagreed : our Holy Mother, the Church, prefers it. Let me repeat this : the Divinely instituted Church prefers it. And I think we venture into gravely serious ground when we contest or doubt that in any way, because it is so plain and clear. Sacred Tradition prefers it. The Living Magisterium prefers it. The Second Vatican Council prefers it. Nothing from any Church Council rebukes or denies it ; in fact, the last Council dictated exactly that truth.

Pax,
Tim

 

[MarkThompson]

So, messing with the words of cosecration is no different or better for a priest than murdering someone or shuffling off into the night to sell consecrated hosts to Satanists for a Black Mass or joining a Masonic lodge.

Mark, I think you are pulling hairs here. The priest entertaining a lap-dance at some point in the Mass would probably constitute “committing a grave sin,” but would it effect the validity of the consecration, ceteris paribus ? Do we really want to go into the Twilight Zone ?

What on earth are you talking about? What a bizarre set of remarks.

 

[Timothy17]

What on earth are you talking about? What a bizarre set of remarks.

ingoodfaith wrote,

“Without the exact wording as prescribed the Consecration is invalid. Period.”

You replied, as in a rebuttal, with,

That is not correct:
If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.
De Defectibus V.1 (no. 20).

My remarks were directed toward the implication of your rebuttal : ingoodfaith spoke as his username implies. The Papal Bull you cited actually agrees in spirit with what ingoodfaith asserted. The priest has not necessarily contravened the Rule ; quite on the contrary, he has done much worse : he has contravened God’s Divine Law : The priest, if “he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning,” of the words of consecration, as the Bull you provided says, nonetheless “he would be committing a grave sin.” So even if the priest fidgets with the words of consecration without altering the meaning - even if he does so with good intention, he is committing a grave sin. Nothing excuses such action or behaviour, especially on the part of a priest. The simple meaning of this Bull is do not mess with the words of consecration, and if you do, you are jeopardizing your soul and flirting with hell-fire. I can’t think of any more grave or serious words the Church could use, and obviously it is something that must never be done.

Now a priest committing a grave sin before the eyes of the Faithful is probably not a little scandalous, no ? And so the point of my reply was to provide examples that illustrate this, and, according to the Bull you produced, fall under the same punishment : that of committing a grave sin.

Edit : Mea culpa. I assumed the citation was that of Canon Law and realized after it was a Papal Bull. I have corrected and replaced appropriately “Canon Law” with “Bull.”

Pax,
Tim

 

[Timothy17]

What on earth are you talking about? What a bizarre set of remarks.

Mark,
I would like to apologize for my lack of charity, which was certainly overly dramatic and harsh ; furthermore, I did an injustice not only to you but to the primary point and object I desired to make :

I have thought long and hard about this thread, and here’s my conclusion :

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church prefers Latin.

No one man prefers it, and it wouldn’t matter even if every man did : It wouldn’t matter if one man disagreed, or every man disagreed : our Holy Mother, the Church, prefers it. Let me repeat this : the Divinely instituted Church prefers it. And I think we venture into gravely serious ground when we contest or doubt that in any way, because it is so plain and clear. Sacred Tradition prefers it. The Living Magisterium prefers it. The Second Vatican Council prefers it. Nothing from any Church Council rebukes or denies it ; in fact, the last Council dictated exactly that truth.

To conclude, it is my assertion that, based on the above, we ought to be having this debate explicitly including the presumption of the Church’s officially stated preference for Latin. I feel this thread very much lacks this, and consequently, cannot or will not be fruitful, and possibly even dangerously confusing or even somewhat scandalous.

Pax,
Tim

 

[MarkThompson]

Mark,
I would like to apologize for my lack of charity, which was certainly overly dramatic and harsh ; furthermore, I did an injustice not only to you but to the primary point and object I desired to make :

No worries, I wasn’t offended, I just couldn’t understand why you flew off the handle. Really, there was no “implication of [my] rebuttal”; I was just correcting a mistaken understanding. It’s a good mistake to clear up, because sometimes people can be overly scrupulous and get all worried, unnecessarily, if a priest adds the word “for” and says “For this is my Body” or something like that.