Why a "dead" language?

[EasterJoy]

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.

The loss of Latin and Greek in our liturgies represents a rupture between us and our ancestors in faith.

Have you ever learned prayers as they have existed for centuries, in an ancient language, in Latin or Hebrew or Greek, and prayed them? It is intensely moving. I am not saying, of course, that it is impossible not to be moved, and so perhaps you have tried this and are not moved. Nevertheless, that is a very common experience of faith.

You may argue, as some do, that Latin, like art and music and many other fine things, are “not necessary to live a life”. In some strict sense, of course, they aren’t. Yet to lose them represents a huge loss of what sets what we know as life apart from mere existence.

We in the West essentially lost Greek, the ancient language of educated Christianity, around the time of St. Gregory the Great, because educated people of the West quit troubling themselves to learn it. As a result, we have a rupture not between just ourselves and our ancestors in faith, but between ourselves and our Eastern brothers and sisters. Let us not let this happen between the “East” and “West” of our own time. I don’t mean that we ought to expel the vernacular from liturgy, but let’s all have some Latin.

 

[japhy]

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

You’re being consistently (insistently?) uncharitable. Assuming you’re responding to my last post, whence did you draw your conclusions?! For at least the past 100 years, the Popes have been calling for our active participation in the Mass. This does not involve us hearing every word, but it does involve us paying attention. You make it sound like a person praying the words of the Rosary, for example, cannot also be concentrating the on the mysteries of the Rosary. You make it sound as if a person offering their own silent prayers while the priest speaks (out loud or quietly) the Eucharistic Prayer is not paying attention.

You do a great discredit to your fellow faithful. And what for, a few enormous ellipses, a couple chuckles, and an emoticon?

 

[EasterJoy]

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

One way to create a language barrier is to use a language not known, yes. Another way is to refuse to learn a language used by others.

Traditionalists are not artificially injecting Latin into our faith. It is there and has been there for centuries, put there by our ancestors in faith.

There are many people capable of learning Latin, people who in fact know Latin, who do not find it a language in which they can elevate their hearts. There are others who find it a language which elevates their hearts as no other can. I do not see why this is so hard to understand that it is not an “indulgence” that our various liturgies rightly recognize both situations. We would do well to be so mutually indulgent, don’t you think?

 

[Lapell]

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…]

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!

On the 1st quote: What’s the difference between “ratifying the prayer” and “showing our personal assent”? I thought these to be two different ways to say the very same thing!!
On the 2nd quote: Is it written this way in the Roman Missal? Maybe the priest just wanted to p(name removed by moderator)oint it to the faithful so as for them to REALISE what was happening, just so as to keep them awake! This is how I would view it… even though a priest can’t say: “MY sacrifice” per se. But even then, he probably had in mind to say “our” in a more obvious way, but so as to keep our attention awake. I think that’s all there is to this. I don’t see that pastoral initiatives should not exist during the Mass at all!! In this case, I personally felt my attention to be called at in a very special way, and I kind of appreciated it. If the priest were adding a personal petition NOT in agreement with the Church, then that would be something else!

 

[Lapell]

One way to create a language barrier is to use a language not known, yes. Another way is to refuse to learn a language used by others.

Traditionalists are not artificially injecting Latin into our faith. It is there and has been there for centuries, put there by our ancestors in faith.

There are many people capable of learning Latin, people who in fact know Latin, who do not find it a language in which they can elevate their hearts. There are others who find it a language which elevates their hearts as no other can. I do not see why this is so hard to understand that it is not an “indulgence” that our various liturgies rightly recognize both situations. We would do well to be so mutually indulgent, don’t you think?

The Church recognizes other rites than the Latin Rite; she recognizes the use of vernacular languages (the languages in general usage in the community) as well as the use of Latin. Why then wouldn’t we? It doesn’t follow from it that you necessarily have to attend the Mass in another rite or another language!!! Just allow diversity within unity, that’s all!
God bless you,
Denis

 

[Lapell]

I just used your quote, Easter Joy, because what I was to say came along with yours. I was not replying to you personally, except to mean that I go along with you.

 

[EasterJoy]

I just used your quote, Easter Joy, because what I was to say came along with yours. I was not replying to you personally, except to mean that I go along with you.

You did seem to be saying essentially the same thing.

As for the question in the original post, the reason we might teach Latin to converts is because converts might profit with this connection to our forebearers, too.

Latin is only dead in the sense that it is not evolving within use as a vernacular language. It is still very much alive in the sense of having a real use in communicating thought and sentiment.

 

[japhy]

What’s the difference between “ratifying the prayer” and “showing our personal assent”? I thought these to be two different ways to say the very same thing!!

The Eucharistic Prayer is effective regardless of whether we say Amen at the end. We don’t ratify the prayer (that is, we don’t authorize it), but we do affirm it. We state that we believe in it – however, even if we didn’t believe in it, it would still have been effected.

For another example, when I sign a lease for an apartment, I ratify the document: my signature makes the deal, and my lack of a signature breaks the deal. That’s not what our “amen” to the Eucharistic Prayer is. It could be likened to our reaction after wedding vows have been made (validly, of course!): if we applaud, we show our consent… if we boo, we show our dissent… but the marriage has happened.

Is it written this way in the Roman Missal?

The official Latin Roman Missal reads Orate, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotem. In the (current) English translation, this reads “Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the Almighty Father.” I do not yet know if the upcoming English translation will be closer to the Latin… but the Latin did not use the word nostrum (“our”), it used the compound phrase meum ac vestrum (“mine and yours”).

Here is an unofficial translation of the Orate fratres in French, from a web site with the 1962 Order of Mass: Priez mes frères: afin que mon Sacrifice, qui est aussi le vôtre, soit agréé par Dieu le Père tout-puissant. I don’t know if that’s currently what is said in French-speaking parishes… perhaps you say notre instead. However, it seems that the current French translation is rather poor: Prions ensemble au moment d’offrir le sacrifice de toute l’Église. to which the faithful respond Pour la gloire de Dieu et le salut du monde. Blegh.

I don’t see that pastoral initiatives should not exist during the Mass at all!! In this case, I personally felt my attention to be called at in a very special way, and I kind of appreciated it. If the priest were adding a personal petition NOT in agreement with the Church, then that would be something else!

If by “pastoral initiatives”, you mean things the priest adds (or changes) in the Mass of his own accord, he does not have the right to do so. He has the freedom to choose texts that the Missal provides for him, and in certain cases (in the USA) he can make up his own texts, but there are other places where there is no variety or option… and this is one of those places.

 

[sphilomena]

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

This rudeness is really offensive to those of us who were there and were praying the Mass devoutly, unlike many today. By your own admission, you weren’t there so you have no way of knowing what was going on. Reading about a period from the perspective of someone who had an ax to grind (if you did so), is not accurate. Too bad you don’t take the time to read a history of what has taken place over the decades; and I’m speaking as one who doesn’t even have the privilege of attending the TLM now.

 

[agr4028]

This rudeness is really offensive to those of us who were there and were praying the Mass devoutly, unlike many today. By your own admission, you weren’t there so you have no way of knowing what was going on. Reading about a period from the perspective of someone who had an ax to grind (if you did so), is not accurate. Too bad you don’t take the time to read a history of what has taken place over the decades; and I’m speaking as one who doesn’t even have the privilege of attending the TLM now.

Equally offensive, are the constant posts that clearly imply that those of us who are perfectly happy with the NO Mass are somehow “less Catholic” than those of you who prefer the TLM.

My comment merely compiled what I’ve read here.

1. Many people didn’t understand the Latin Mass because they were illiterate.
2. Many people spent their time at Mass saying other prayers or the Rosary.
3. It was/is not necessary for us to hear or understand the Eucharistic Prayer, only that we “assent” to it with “amen”.

I didn’t write those things, others did. I compiled them into one comment.

Frankly the idea of saying the Rosary while not paying attention to Mass makes a mockery of attending Mass, from where I’m sitting. We have the other 6 days, and 22+ hours each week to pray to the saints and pray the Rosary. Mass time, is Mass time.

 

[Lapell]

The official Latin Roman Missal reads Orate, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotem. In the (current) English translation, this reads “Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the Almighty Father.” I do not yet know if the upcoming English translation will be closer to the Latin… but the Latin did not use the word nostrum (“our”), it used the compound phrase meum ac vestrum ("mine and yours.)
However, it seems that the current French translation is rather poor: Prions ensemble au moment d’offrir le sacrifice de toute l’Église. to which the faithful respond Pour la gloire de Dieu et le salut du monde. Blegh.

Well, I’m glad that the priest didn’t make that up!! The effect on me is still the same, and so I can’t disapprove it!
As for the French, it says something quite different:
“Let’s pray together, at this time when the sacrifice of the whole Church is being offered” “…For the glory of God and the salvation of the world.” You find this bad?

 

[sphilomena]

Equally offensive, are the constant posts that clearly imply that those of us who are perfectly happy with the NO Mass are somehow “less Catholic” than those of you who prefer the TLM.

Don’t use “those of you” on me! I have never said any such thing or even implied it. I try to look at things historically; I’ve been around longer than some who write about things or eras they aren’t familiar. I don’t even have access to the TLM. And I don’t think you will ever find anything insulting or rude in my posts, at least I make every effort to be factual and not unkind. You need to apologize for your blanket statement.

 

[japhy]

As for the French, it says something quite different:

“Let’s pray together, at this time when the sacrifice of the whole Church is being offered” “…For the glory of God and the salvation of the world.”

You find this bad?

Yes, I find it bad, and so does the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (formerly the Sacred Congregation of Rites). From Wikipedia’s French edition (on the History of the Roman Rite):
En mars 2001, la Sacrée Congrégation des Rites a publié la 5e instruction pour une correcte application de la réforme liturgique, « Liturgiam authenticam » : dans ce texte, le Vatican demande de revoir les traductions de la liturgie : « il est nécessaire que le texte original ou primitif soit, autant que possible, traduit intégralement et très précisément, c’est-à-dire sans omission ni ajout, par rapport au contenu, ni en introduisant des paraphrases ou des gloses »(n°20).

Les règles sur la supervision et la conformité de la traduction ayant été rendues plus strictes, les abus dénoncés par ces critiques ne seraient effectivement plus possibles. L’échéance pour la réalisation de ces corrections était de 5 ans après la publication de l’instruction soit mars 2006. Si les corrections des traductions anglophones ont été soumises à Rome, les traductions francophones en cours ne sont toujours pas achevées : « La règle est … le missel de Paul VI, actuellement dans la version publiée en 2002 en latin, et qui est en cours de traduction en français, ce qui prend du temps, car c’est un travail très important. », ce qui paraît alimenter la méfiance des traditionalistes.
As you readily admit, the French people say something rather different than the Latin text demands. It’s not that what you say is bad, but rather that it is not what the Church teaches us to say at that time; for example, I like that the priest mentions that the sacrifice is that of “the whole Church”! But still, the French translation does no justice to the official Latin text.

1. The Latin text gives us direction for our prayer: “that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father”. The French does not.
2. The Latin text is an invitation to the faithful to pray. The French is a “we” prayer.
3. The Latin text says “for the praise and glory of His name, for our good, and for the good of all His Holy Church”. The French simply mentions “the glory of God and the salvation of the world”.

Again, it’s not that the French text is bad text, it’s that it’s the wrong text. (It could, conceivably, be bad text, but I don’t perceive it as such.)

 

[JReducation]

I agree that there is much teaching and learning that can happen though the homily, but the custom in homiletics is very clear. There is a difference between homiletics and catechesis. They should complement each other.

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

The Mystical Body of Christ is not the object of study in Mystical Theology. The Mystical Body is the proper object of study in Ecclesiology.

Mystical Theology studies the achievement of sanctity through union of the individual soul with the Divine. This should be the ultimate goal of every man and woman of any faith, to transcend time and space and encounter the Divine in the soul where no words or gestures are used, because they are not necessary.

Benedict, Augustine, Our Holy Father Francis, Bonaventure, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, Therese of Lisieux, John Vennier, Elizabeth Seton, and John Paul II wrote extensively on Mystical Theology.

They all point to what St. Augustine calls the “resting place”. This is the ultimate goal of faith, to rest in God.

The search for union of our soul with Divinity should occupy our minds, time and energy more than anything else in this life. The Scriptures, Church and Liturgy were given to us as the means to begin our journey and as spiritual guide and food for the journey.

But if we expend too much time on debating the merits and meanings of these things and never leave time for the desert, we are not making proper use of them no matter how perfect the liturgy, the exegesis, the the teachings of the Church.

For this reason our Holy Father Francis wrote “The Rule and Life of the Friars Minor is to live the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, in blind obedience to Christ, the Church, me your servant and my successors, without property and in chastity.”

While this was the rule for the First Order Franciscan Brothers it contains a great theological summary of what the life of every Christian should be: the Gospel, total obedience witout murmurring as Christ practiced it, complete detachment from material things and people, and purity of heart, mind and body.

Mystical theology teaches the soul how to achieve this in a transcendent way.

JR

 

[japhy]

I agree that there is much teaching and learning that can happen though the homily, but the custom in homiletics is very clear. There is a difference between homiletics and catechesis. They should complement each other.

Well, then Pope Benedict shouldn’t be talking about ad orientem in his homilies…

Mystical Theology studies the achievement of sanctity through union of the individual soul with the Divine. This should be the ultimate goal of every man and woman of any faith, to transcend time and space and encounter the Divine in the soul where no words or gestures are used, because they are not necessary.

Benedict, Augustine, Our Holy Father Francis, Bonaventure, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, Therese of Lisieux, John Vennier, Elizabeth Seton, and John Paul II wrote extensively on Mystical Theology.

Oh. That. As someone who has not been a formal recipient of such education (as is apparent by my misunderstanding) I thought you meant something else. Yes, such catechesis would be great!

 

[johnnydigit]

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.

slam dunk.

agr4028 if you don’t understand the need for Latin, so be it, you are free to ignore it, for now at least. understand that the deeper you go into its theology, the clearer its importance becomes. the initial sentiment against it is common to us all, but since we have already given you ample resources to learn about it, it only demonstrates your ignorance on the matter and persisting only makes you look more foolish. just let it go. sorry about my harshness earlier.

 

[CBS]

Would you be able to enjoy the Mass more knowing it?

Has anyone used Rosetta Stone or a program like it to learn it?

 

[johnnydigit]

Mystical Theology studies the achievement of sanctity through union of the individual soul with the Divine. This should be the ultimate goal of every man and woman of any faith, to transcend time and space and encounter the Divine in the soul where no words or gestures are used, because they are not necessary.

Benedict, Augustine, Our Holy Father Francis, Bonaventure, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, Therese of Lisieux, John Vennier, Elizabeth Seton, and John Paul II wrote extensively on Mystical Theology.

They all point to what St. Augustine calls the “resting place”. This is the ultimate goal of faith, to rest in God.

The search for union of our soul with Divinity should occupy our minds, time and energy more than anything else in this life. The Scriptures, Church and Liturgy were given to us as the means to begin our journey and as spiritual guide and food for the journey.

i love mystical theology! unfortunately most of us are completely clueless regarding what we should be seeking. it seems like only the consecrated religious and a select few are blessed with the grace to seek it. i wish we could hammer this into our brothers somehow… maybe instill that fear of hell like in midieval times?

have you discerned a vocation to religious life yet? from St. Bruno of the Carthusians,
“Rejoice, therefore, my beloved brothers, over the lot of overflowing happiness that has fallen to you, and for the grace of God that you have received in such abundance. Rejoice that you have succeeded in escaping the countless dangers and shipwrecks of this storm-tossed world, and have reached a
quiet corner in the security of a hidden harbor. Many would like to join you, and many there are also who make a considerable effort to do so, but fail in their attempt. What is more, many are shut out even after having attained it, since it was not in the plan of God to give them this grace."

ANYWHO, yeah, Latin is just the beginning… if you’re not ready for it, you’re not ready for it. if you are, then go to town!

 

[agr4028]

slam dunk.

agr4028 if you don’t understand the need for Latin, so be it, you are free to ignore it, for now at least. understand that the deeper you go into its theology, the clearer its importance becomes. the initial sentiment against it is common to us all, but since we have already given you ample resources to learn about it, it only demonstrates your ignorance on the matter and persisting only makes you look more foolish. just let it go. sorry about my harshness earlier.

I’m hardly ignorant on the matter. I personally own an altar size Roman Missal, and I’ve spent a lot of time looking at it. And to be candid, the ones that seem foolish to me are the ones that keep carping for things the way they were 40 years ago.

Sorry

 

[japhy]

I’m hardly ignorant on the matter. I personally own an altar size Roman Missal, and I’ve spent a lot of time looking at it.

That’s great, actually. I have a chapel-sized 1985 English Roman Missal and a chapel-sized 2002 Latin Roman Missal. Not that everyone needs their own, but it’s a help for education and general knowledge about the Mass.

And to be candid, the ones that seem foolish to me are the ones that keep carping for things the way they were 40 years ago.

How many years back is acceptable to ask things to be? 5? 10? 20? 40? “1900”, perhaps?

There are some things that changed that didn’t need changing; or, at least, the way they were changed was detrimental. There are some liturgical things that shouldn’t be the way they were 40 years ago, but many that should be.