Why a "dead" language?

[Lapell]

Peut-être les gens de ta paroisse ne savent pas ce qu’ils manquent! C’est possible – non? – qu’ils ne savent pas sur la langue, son histoire… et ils n’apprenaient jamais ce que le Conseil IIe du Vatican a dit sur le sujet de cette langue dans la Messe.

Peut-être… It’s possible that they don’t know what they 're missing indeed! le concile Vatican II n’a jamais éliminé le latin, en effet! … Sorry, guys! It’s the very first time I receive a reply tout en français! You’d think we’re in a Poirot Mystery!!
But in fact, they seem to be really afraid they could not understand what’s going on, I don’t know. There is a certain number of people in our diocese, though, who are interested and they might have a location soon. (It’s not in Quebec, it’s in the Maritime Provinces…) If some of you would like to pray for these people, you’re welcome! God bless you!

 

[Ghoti]

(By the way, excellent username.)

Thanks…if that’s directed at me!

For those who could not follow the French nor the Latin, here is an authorized English translation:…

Is this the Douay or King James translation? It reads more like a “Good News”…

 

[johnnydigit]

What strikes me as narrow-minded, is forcing someone to learn a dead, foreign tongue to worship…when that worship is already facilitated through their native tongues.

Yeah, expanding your horizons to learn to worship God in the same tongue as the whole Latin Rite of the Church is narrow-minded.

and expanding his horizons would include learning the many reasons why it is so, rather than spit on it.

agr4028, are you even Catholic? being Catholic might include understanding why the Church does things, especially when our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI wishes it to be so. if you’re not, well that explains the negative feelings towards authority…

 

[JReducation]

See, the priests need to encourage the people and support them and help them. That is FIRST AND FOREMOST what Sacrosanctum Concilium called for. Read n. 14 of that document, and see that “full, conscious, and active participation of the laity” is desired through their liturgical formation by their pastors! It does the people no good in English or Latin if they can’t understand what’s happening – and English doesn’t make understanding instant, since many American Catholics don’t understand the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the transubstantiation and the offering of the Body and Blood of God the Son to God the Father that happens at every Mass. Maybe you could talk to the priests and ask them to offer sessions for the faithful, outside of Mass (or devote part of the homily to this), that teach them about what is happening, what the priest is saying (out loud and quietly). Liturgical formation is the key to active participation… otherwise, you’re just saying what you’ve been told to say.

I strongly suggest becoming familiar with your daily missal (assuming you have one). Place the ribbons in the appropriate places (the Ordinary, the readings for the day, and the other propers). Read it ahead of time… practice flipping back and forth, even! If you want to “participate”, you should be willing to “work”.

Also, don’t presume why someone is saying the Rosary during Mass. It could very well be that they just can’t follow along and are doing their own thing, but it could also be that, while the priest is saying his prayers (for us), some of the laity are saying their prayers… maybe for the priest! Could you imagine if pastors taught (or at least asked) that their faithful pray for them during the (silent) Eucharistic Prayer? Pausing, of course, at the moments of consecration, but still. What a beautiful way to unite the prayers of the people with the prayers of the priest!

I like a lot of what you say in your post, especially the idea of praying for one another, including praying for the priest.

Unless this has been changed since I went through theology, there were two thigs that you were not to do at mass.

1. The sermon could not be used for catechesis. It has to be on the scriptures. Catechesis is teaching about such things as the liturgy. That is a different ministry than what is happening at the mass.
2. There are to be no private devotions to saints, including Mary, during the liturgy. The focus must be entirely on the scriptures during the liturgy of the word and on the Eucharist during the liturgy of the Eucharist. So praying the rosary during the liturgy is inappropriate, because it is not focused on the readings of the mass or on the Eucharist.

JR

 

[japhy]

I like a lot of what you say in your post, especially the idea of praying for one another, including praying for the priest.

Thanks. (I should do it, instead of just say it… I don’t want to be a hypocrite.)

1. The sermon could not be used for catechesis. It has to be on the scriptures. Catechesis is teaching about such things as the liturgy. That is a different ministry than what is happening at the mass.

This might be #1 on the list of things people have the wrong idea about. (No offense. I think you were taught wrongly.) Please read this blog post of mine, entitled “Excerpti: The Homily, Part III: What is the purpose of the homily?” In it, using magisterial sources, I present a summary of what the aim of the homily is. In a nutshell, Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 14 (which I didn’t quote in the blog post, but probably should) says: “pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve [full and active participation by all the people], by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.”

1. There are to be no private devotions to saints, including Mary, during the liturgy. The focus must be entirely on the scriptures during the liturgy of the word and on the Eucharist during the liturgy of the Eucharist. So praying the rosary during the liturgy is inappropriate, because it is not focused on the readings of the mass or on the Eucharist.

I don’t know the details on this one. Not even prayers to a particular saint on his or her feast day? Obviously people shouldn’t be pre-occupied during the readings, but the Eucharistic Prayer is not being addressed to us, and honestly, we’ve heard it enough times to know what the priest is saying (and we’d understand it better if he explained it to us than if we just heard it said another couple hundred times). During the time the priest is saying that prayer, why should it be forbidden to offer our own prayers, so long as they have a Eucharistic character to them?

 

[johnnydigit]

1. The sermon could not be used for catechesis. It has to be on the scriptures. Catechesis is teaching about such things as the liturgy. That is a different ministry than what is happening at the mass.

i sure hope this isn’t true, but i guess it may explain why the older ones don’t seem to catechize much…

a lot of the time it seems like they are preaching to an audience with an adult faith, when in reality most of us nowadays are, in the words of Fr. Corapi, mere kindergarteners in the faith.

=======

for me, Latin (and its use in the TLM) is like the next level for growing in the faith. first i got very familiar with the OF of Mass, then i started to learn a little bit of Latin and how much more meaningful it is, then the TLM is like an entirely advanced level. using some Latin in the OF is like increasing the depth of it a little more, since usually the equivalent Latin phrases have much more meaning than their English counterparts. not only that but it gives it a certain sacredness and holiness.

 

[JReducation]

“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to little Lucia of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul… I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.”
-Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Piux XII), 1931

We would be wise to heed Our Lady’s warnings at Fatima.

Keep in mind, that none of the statements from Fatima became part of Church teaching. They are only binding when they become part of the teaching of the Church, such as Mercy Sunday.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Thanks. (I should do it, instead of just say it… I don’t want to be a hypocrite.)

This might be #1 on the list of things people have the wrong idea about. (No offense. I think you were taught wrongly.) Please read this blog post of mine, entitled “Excerpti: The Homily, Part III: What is the purpose of the homily?” In it, using magisterial sources, I present a summary of what the aim of the homily is. In a nutshell, Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 14 (which I didn’t quote in the blog post, but probably should) says: “pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve [full and active participation by all the people], by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.”

This we were taught. But it does not mean that the sermon is for catechetical instruction. The Sacramentary is clear on this. Obviously, preaching is going to have some catechetical elements. But it’s not the place to explain the mass to the people. This is the duty of Bishops which they share with the parish pastors, but not during the mass.

I don’t know the details on this one. Not even prayers to a particular saint on his or her feast day?

If you’re talking about devotional prayers, no. On feasts, the saint is already mentioned in the regular prayers of the mass. There is no need for someone to pray a novena to St. Jude during the mass on the Feast of St. Jude, just an example. The focus is Christ and we are worshiping God for what he has done through the saint.

Obviously people shouldn’t be pre-occupied during the readings, but the Eucharistic Prayer is not being addressed to us, and honestly, we’ve heard it enough times to know what the priest is saying (and we’d understand it better if he explained it to us than if we just heard it said another couple hundred times). During the time the priest is saying that prayer, why should it be forbidden to offer our own prayers, so long as they have a Eucharistic character to them?

The Eucharistic prayer is being said in the name of the Church, not the priest. We should be united with him in prayer calling down the Holy Spirit upon the Church. We should not be praying the Eucharistic prayer, because it’s only for a presbyter and a bishop. But we should be tuned into what is happening at that time. We are supposed to be attentive at that time. This is one of those moments in the liturgy where the full attention should be on mystery at the altar.

As to understanding the Eucharistic Prayer, that’s the job of catechesis. Every good program in catechesis should include liturgy. Unfortunatey, our catechetical programs are weak. This is what happens when you depend on volunteers who do not have time to get proper training and long enough.

In many diocese the training for catechists is very brief and superficial. It focuses more on methodology than on content. Often the Office of Religious Education assumes too much. They assume that the future catechists know more than what they actually do.

I ran on office on Religious Education and I had to teach theology to the catechists, because they did not know any. They knew the answers to the Baltimore Catechism (if they were older). Just knowing those and not knowing the theology and philosophy behind those answers is not enough.

Never mind mystical theology. Most Catholics wouldn’t recognize Mystical Theology if it hit them in the face with baseball bats and yet we ask people to develop a deep prayer life. That has always astounded me. After 7 years of studying philosophy and mystical theology I find that telling people to pray and hope for the best is a little shabby to say the least.

Every good catechetical program should also include mystical theology.

Those are just my two cents.

JR

JR

 

[JReducation]

i sure hope this isn’t true, but i guess it may explain why the older ones don’t seem to catechize much…

a lot of the time it seems like they are preaching to an audience with an adult faith, when in reality most of us nowadays are, in the words of Fr. Corapi, mere kindergarteners in the faith.

=======

for me, Latin (and its use in the TLM) is like the next level for growing in the faith. first i got very familiar with the OF of Mass, then i started to learn a little bit of Latin and how much more meaningful it is, then the TLM is like an entirely advanced level. using some Latin in the OF is like increasing the depth of it a little more, since usually the equivalent Latin phrases have much more meaning than their English counterparts. not only that but it gives it a certain sacredness and holiness.

I think it may also have something to do with the sound of certain languages. English and German are not exactly what one would call very poetic languages.

I have attended mass in Latin, Italian, Spanish and French, all four sound much more beautiful than English.

There is a quality about the Romance languages that adds beauty to poetry. Remember, the prayers of the mass were written to be very poetic. One of the requirements to be a liturgist is to be a good writer. Those who wrote the prayers in the sacramentary were first class poets.

When I heard them in the Romance languages I could hear the poetic beauty. You don’t get that in English. The English translations are beautiful, not lack something. I compare the wording, the translations are correct, so it’s not that.

If you ever want to experiment, go to a mass in French or Spanish. You’ll hear the poetic flow.

I can’t explain it better than that.

Maybe that’s why Russian Catholics use Slovanic instead of Russian. Russian is another one of those rough languages.
JR

 

[japhy]

But it does not mean that the sermon is for catechetical instruction. The Sacramentary is clear on this.

Where is the Sacramentary clear on that? The GIRM mentions the homily, but does not simply say it is a scriptural exegesis. Read GIRM nn. 11-12 again and see that the homily. As for the Roman Missal, all it says is where the homily goes, and when it should be given.

Obviously, preaching is going to have some catechetical elements. But it’s not the place to explain the mass to the people. This is the duty of Bishops which they share with the parish pastors, but not during the mass.

(All quotes are found on the blog post I mentioned.)

I’m afraid I still disagree with you here. If Vatican II restored the homily as Trent intended it to be, then priests are to “explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice”: this can certainly be liturgical in nature, such as explaining why we need only receive under one form, or why the priest places a tiny bit of the Host in the Chalice, or why the wine is mixed with water… this is liturgical and theological catechesis.

The homily should “teach and illustrate to the faithful the truths of faith”, and since the lex orandi is the lex credendi – and the Mass, properly celebrated, is a manifestation of our faith – there should be no prejudice against teaching the faithful about something liturgical in the homily, since there should be some meaning behind every action in the liturgy. Kudos to the priest who can make it relevant to the readings and celebration of that day.

I’m not saying the priest should avoid biblical instruction. That, too, is part of the homily. But biblical instruction is not the only purpose of the homily. The priest can’t do all his liturgical catechizing through use of the interjections allowed in the Mass (the commentator concept) because, first of all, if used too much, it disrupts the flow of the Mass terribly and the Mass simply becomes a presentation to the people at which they are merely spectators, and second because such commentary is not allowed during certain parts of the Mass that are really worth explaining!

The Eucharistic prayer is being said in the name of the Church, not the priest. We should be united with him in prayer calling down the Holy Spirit upon the Church. We should not be praying the Eucharistic prayer, because it’s only for a presbyter and a bishop. But we should be tuned into what is happening at that time. We are supposed to be attentive at that time. This is one of those moments in the liturgy where the full attention should be on mystery at the altar.

I really like Pope Pius XII’s take on it, found in Mediator Dei (esp nn. 90-99). He talks about the joining of our own prayers with the prayer being offered by the priest on our behalf.

As to understanding the Eucharistic Prayer, that’s the job of catechesis. Every good program in catechesis should include liturgy. Unfortunatey, our catechetical programs are weak.

If you don’t mind my saying so, our liturgy is often weak too… banalized to the point where you wouldn’t think we need it to be explained to us, but that’s because people get the absolute wrong impression. That is, they think they know what’s going on, but they don’t, because it’s being done wrong.

Priests, before they can give sound liturgical catechesis in their homilies, need to be re-educated in the true liturgy. Yeah, Vatican II said that. (Optatam Totius, n. 16, as well as the ubiquitous Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 14) And it was repeated afterwards too. Perhaps so many priests nowadays dilly-dally with the liturgy because they don’t know exactly what it is they’re doing, they don’t know the “mind of the Church”… clearly, they don’t know it’s not theirs to mess with. (I hope.)

Never mind mystical theology. Most Catholics wouldn’t recognize Mystical Theology if it hit them in the face with baseball bats and yet we ask people to develop a deep prayer life. … Every good catechetical program should also include mystical theology.

Mystical Body of Christ, anyone? That’s a good starting place.

 

[agr4028]

and expanding his horizons would include learning the many reasons why it is so, rather than spit on it.

agr4028, are you even Catholic? being Catholic might include understanding why the Church does things, especially when our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI wishes it to be so. if you’re not, well that explains the negative feelings towards authority…

There are more than enough various ways and means of deeping ones faith, without indulging in “created” language barriers.

The statement that B16 “wishes it so” is merely opinion, not documented by the Church. Numerous quotes have been posted in regard to B16 and Latin Mass. He has not said that he “wishes the Mass to revert to Latin”

And, your “spitting” comment was really uncalled for, and not relevent to the discussion.

Yes, I’m plenty Catholic, thank you very much

 

[japhy]

The statement that B16 “wishes it so” is merely opinion, not documented by the Church. Numerous quotes have been posted in regard to B16 and Latin Mass. He has not said that he “wishes the Mass to revert to Latin”.

In his post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis (which is addressed to you!) the Pope had this to say about Latin (n. 62, emphasis added):None of the above observations should cast doubt upon the importance of such large-scale liturgies. I am thinking here particularly of celebrations at international gatherings, which nowadays are held with greater frequency. The most should be made of these occasions. In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, such liturgies could be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant.

 

[Lapell]

Obviously people shouldn’t be pre-occupied during the readings, but the Eucharistic Prayer is not being addressed to us, and honestly, we’ve heard it enough times to know what the priest is saying (and we’d understand it better if he explained it to us than if we just heard it said another couple hundred times).

Of course the Eucharistic Prayer is not addressed to us, but to God! Still, the priest does this prayer in the name of the faithful present. Don’t you want to know what you are saying “Amen” to?
Moreover, even though you heard this one so many times, maybe you could be struck by something that the prayer says this time? It may happen, you know! Just like a certain passage you heard or read many times sometimes reveals a new meaning that you hadn’t previously seen…

 

[catharina]

japhy;3542876:

Obviously people shouldn’t be pre-occupied during the readings, but the Eucharistic Prayer is not being addressed to us, and honestly, we’ve heard it enough times to know what the priest is saying (and we’d understand it better if he explained it to us than if we just heard it said another couple hundred times).

Of course the Eucharistic Prayer is not addressed to us, but to God! Still, the priest does this prayer in the name of the faithful present. Don’t you want to know what you are saying “Amen” to?
Moreover, even though you heard this one so many times, maybe you could be struck by something that the prayer says this time? It may happen, you know! Just like a certain passage you heard or read many times sometimes reveals a new meaning that you hadn’t previously seen…

Not to mention the fact that at each Mass, we are called to be present and attentive as we are witnessing a miracle taking place. What can we say (pray) that would top that?

 

[Lapell]

Le concile Vatican II n’a jamais éliminé le latin, en effet! …

I am sorry I forgot to translate this, even though you might have guessed the meaning… so, here it is:
“The Second Vatican Council (in French, it’s “concile” in this case, not “conseil”!) never eliminated the Latin indeed!”

 

[Lapell]

Fortasse, gens parochiae non enim sciunt quid omittiunt. Fortasse, ignorant de lingua historiaque, et numquam didicere quid Concilium Secundum Vaticanum de re linguae in Missa dixit.

It’s great to have somebody who actually can translate what we say into Latin!!!

 

[Lapell]

Not to mention the fact that at each Mass, we are called to be present and attentive as we are witnessing a miracle taking place. What can we say (pray) that would top that?

Yes, indeed you’re right! As for personal devotions,one can pray before the mass or after. However, I hope you won’t mind if I ask the help of the Holy Spirit (silently, of course!) right before I do the reading?

 

[agr4028]

It’s great to have somebody who actually can translate what we say into Latin!!!

But again…what’s the point? Other than to make a point that you like Latin.

I’ve been going to Mass in English all my life. I understand what is going on just fine, thank you.

Latin is not neccessary to live a life of faith in the Catholic Church.

 

[japhy]

Of course the Eucharistic Prayer is not addressed to us, but to God! Still, the priest does this prayer in the name of the faithful present. Don’t you want to know what you are saying “Amen” to?

I’m not saying we shouldn’t pay attention to the Eucharistic Prayer (although the necessity of us hearing it was not mentioned by Vatican II). We should be taught how to pray along with it, though. Like how when we pray the Rosary, we have a divine mystery in mind while we are praying the Hail Marys.

And the “amen” is required of us, not to ratify the prayer of the priest, but to show our personal assent to it and desire for it.

Not to mention the fact that at each Mass, we are called to be present and attentive as we are witnessing a miracle taking place. What can we say (pray) that would top that?

We’re not trying to “top” anything. I’m just going along with Pope Pius XII’s explanation of how the faithful, in their own manner – differently from the priest – “are said to offer the sacrifice” (from Mediator Dei, nn. 91-99):
[T]here is also a more profound reason why all Christians, especially those who are present at Mass, are said to offer the sacrifice. … Now the faithful participate in the oblation, understood in this limited sense, after their own fashion and in a twofold manner, namely, because they not only offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest, but also, to a certain extent, in union with him. … [T]he conclusion that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite; … rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father. … In order that the oblation by which the faithful offer the divine Victim in this sacrifice to the heavenly Father may have its full effect, it is necessary that the people add something else, namely, the offering of themselves as a victim. … But at that time especially when the faithful take part in the liturgical service with such piety and recollection that it can truly be said of them: “whose faith and devotion is known to Thee,” it is then, with the High Priest and through Him they offer themselves as a spiritual sacrifice, that each one’s faith ought to become more ready to work through charity, his piety more real and fervent, and each one should consecrate himself to the furthering of the divine glory, desiring to become as like as possible to Christ in His most grievous sufferings.
It’s a shame that the English translation of the Orate fratres mistranslates “that my sacrifice and yours” as “that our sacrifice”… it’s as if the priest is doing everything for us, and we just kneel and listen as spectators! We have our own sacrifice of praise – and the sacrifice of our very selves – to unite to the Divine Victim offered at the hands of the priest! Who mentions this kind of stuff anymore?

 

[agr4028]

Ohhhhhhhhh…so NOW I get it…A foreign language, spoken for the illiterate…who by and large weren’t paying attention anyway because they were saying their rosaries or praying to the saints…and they didn’t even HAVE to pay attention to the Eucharistic Prayer, only assent to it.

Whoo-boy !! Thank God for Vatican II