Well, look. Your argument has “won” and most Catholic masses are now said in the vernacular. Those relatively few traditional masses still said in Latin are mostly attended by people who are willing to make the effort to learn enough to follow along. There’s something for everyone in the Catholic Church, so this is kind of a non-issue.
ME. When I was a catholic kid.
Now thats what I call “common sense”.
Stop living in the past. Besides, they prevented you from having a missal? Heck, they practially forced us to get them.
I don’t actually know a lot of Latin, but I know the scatological word you used because it is the same in French.
As I just said to Agnos Theist, this is really kind of a non-issue because most masses now are not said in Latin. If you want to debate with people who want to bring Latin back across the board, the traddies up in “Traditional Catholicism” probably would be happy to oblige.
“nonsense” is a highly gentrified translation.
The whole thrust of the “reform of the reform” is to teach the Ordinary of the Mass – the parts that do not change – to the people in Latin so they KNOW what they mean (this is easy) and so that we can hold onto the thread of our history – one that links us with 1500 years of worship.Oh, lighten up. The real issue would be, how many people would know to be offended?
I love Latin. But all of my love for it won’t bring it back into common usage. In an age where fewer and fewer people are coming to Mass/Church, we had best communicate the best we can. We are the hands and arms of Christ, and the burden of spreading the Gospel is on us, not on the lost to learn our language.
If our most educated clergy don’t know it well enough to converse, how can we expect the laos to?
Just as they teach survivor Spanish to many in public service, maybe we should teach survivor Latin to catechumens. Such as: Heu, modo itera omnia quae mihi nunc nuper narravisti, sed nunc anglice?
O+
My mother is dead… and so is Caesar.
How about responding to the 5 points I posted. You make it sound as though only an idiot would see value in Latin. As usual, the truth is somewhat more complicated.
Do you ever listen to this?
i dont disagree with your 5 points.
i think there are 2 kinds of people who would see value in latin.
Well, it would be more difficult for those priests who like to ad lib, add, or change words to make mass more ‘relevant’ and ‘personal’, (pater/mater noster?)
I’d love to use the Gelasian Sacramentary for most worship - and heck, I’m Protestant. But there would be blank stares everywhere. Even for those who understood Latin!!!
Well that was easy.i dont disagree with your 5 points.
I’m not particularly either. I see value for its unifying power, for its ability to help avoid the depredations of translators with agendas, and for keeping alive a full and truly glorious tradition of sacred music as over a banal, incomplete and truly forgettable one.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος! That’s the inscription I wrote on the frieze of my theology bookcase (but in Latin)!
Why Hebrew? Classical Arabic? Most modern religions have a sacred language that their rites are done in. This language was once the vernacular but became sacred by the use in religious rites. For Catholicism this is Latin. No where in modern religions have people gone from a sacred language to a new vernacular; except in the Catholic Church. This is something we Catholics have lost but we are regaining. I predict that in 50 years there will be no priests willing to say the Mass in the vernacular. While liberal seminaries are trying to stay afloat, traditional seminaries that teach the Latin Mass are overflowing.
Well, for Christians, maintining Hebrew for worship poses a little question in that the Scriptures current in general use in New Testament times were the Greek Septuagint.A service which is intended for the general populus ought to be understood by them. Here in the US Muslims will have sermons in English… and even might have extra shifts in the Somali language for a large population of Somalians who aren’t fluent in English. The purpose is for them to understand the message being preached to them.
The Qur’an has been translated for meaning, so anyone should be able to grasp at understanding it.
But recitation of it, and the prayers–that is in Arabic. A universal language, of sorts. A person can pray the same prayer anywhere in the world, and don’t need to be fluent in Arabic, just only need to learn what’s in the prayers, which is pretty simply. The Qur’an uses less than 2% of the Arabic vocabulary so it is also relatively easy to learn, although there are translations which most people use to understand instead.
If someone is going to come to mass, it might be they have to learn Latin just to understand. And in fact, that doesn’t bode well for universality.
Jews at least have scripture that was revealed in Hebrew, a good reason to maintain the study and use of Hebrew in services. The same for Muslims and Arabic.
Christians don’t have that, though… so it seems strange and artificial to me to adhere to the Latin as if it’s somehow holier or better than another language… when that’s not quite backed up in its historical traditions.