Why should Latin be used at mass?

[Sancto_Spiritu]

Obviously, however I would say that most don’t think about that when they say that Latin should be the language used everywhere. For example:
**
“-It also emphasizes the unity of the Church, and shows that the Church isn’t just for some nations but all.
-It creates a distinctly Catholic culture and unity, and the majority of the great tradition of Catholic sacred music is in Latin.”**

When people talk about the “unity” of the Church, they aren’t really talking about the entire Church.

It is for this reason that I think the vernacular should be used, and Latin should be optional.

I’m not following what you’re saying. Please explain more?

 

[Religio71]

I’m not following what you’re saying. Please explain more?

When people say that we should use Latin exclusively, that really is based on a false sense of unity that doesn’t reflect the entire Catholic Church. Firstly, when one says that using Latin would allow one to go ANYWHERE in the world and experience the same Mass everywhere, this isn’t completely true, as we are forgetting the Eastern Catholic churches. Now, of course the Roman Catholic church is practically everywhere, however there are still 17 million Eastern Catholics in the world. So when one says that using Latin shows the unity of the Church, they really mean the unity of the Roman Catholic church. So what happens with the Eastern Catholics? Should they not show the same unity? Should they have Ukrainian only in Ukranian Catholic churches, Slavonic in Russian Catholic churches, etc.?

I think that using the vernacular is great, and because the Catholic Church is not just the Roman Catholic Church, I don’t see any real benefit for using Latin exclusively for liturgies in the West.

 

[ProVobis]

For one thing, Latin was used in the Roman Rite for around 400 years.

Actually over 1600 years, except I can’t remember exactly when the Roman Rite was established.

One of the problems in this translation had to do with the creed. “Credo in unum Deum” means “I believe in one God.”

That’s being fixed, though I don’t see the big deal. Why change custom?

I don’t like what I see being passed off as the Latin Mass on EWTN. I never, never saw a Latin Mass like the ones that those priests say at the “Shrine” in Hanceville (or wherever that is). The ordinary Latin Mass I used to serve took from 20 minutes to 60 minutes, Not 150 minutes like on EWTN. Papal Masses from Rome seldom take so long as those Latin Masses on EWTN. The only one really kicking for a Latin Mass on EWTN was Mother Angelica.

That’s strange as all I’ve heard is that the Latin Mass is generally abusively too short.

I don’t see the advantage of the priest saying “Dominus vobiscum” rather than “The Lord be with you.” These are totally equivalent,

Now I don’t profess to be a linguist but I know enough to accept the fact that no translation is perfectly exact. There are subtle if not profound differences in expressions and idioms and sentence structure. (There is no “the” or “be” in the Latin.) You can see that even within the same language equivalence can be compromised by the tone of your voice or punctuation or sentence structure. Maybe theologically in your example the two expression may be equivalent but do be careful with translations in general. The ICEL is a perfect example of how a committee can botch translations. 40 years later they’re forced to correct their original translations and guess what, the Latin hasn’t changed. Advantage: Latin.

That said, my own preference is to have BOTH Latin and the local vernacular in the Mass/liturgy or at least have the priest speak up a little more, although I do understand in the High Mass, the choir generally drowns out anything the priest prays. I also prefer the Low Mass for that reason.

 

[thunderballs75]

Woo!

 

[excelsus]

I prefer not to make the arguments that there are no “changes” in Latin like there are in English (how English develops), stuff like that, racial lines, etc. My one reason for preferring the use of Latin is simply the sound of it. The “speaking in tongues” stuff, where people think this weird language they don’t know is the language they would use in heaven, I don’t get a word of that. Just from the sound of it, the extravagance, I can tell that Latin is the language used in heaven.

 

[bpbasilphx]

First, your posts are difficult to read. Use the “quote” function like everyone else.
Second, how small are you trying to get those hairs you’re splitting?

What’s so hard to read about my replies? Can you not tell the difference between boldfaced and normal type?

And why is it splitting hairs to insist that unity does not mean uniformity? Please explain.

In fact, I think the blurring of distinctions between such concepts as “unity” and “uniformity” and especially between “Roman” and “Latin” on the one hand and “Catholic” on the other (too many people think they are the same) can cause a lot of problems and misunderstanding.

BTW–does anyone here know what the Zoghby initiative is?

 

[thunderballs75]

What’s so hard to read about my replies? Can you not tell the difference between boldfaced and normal type?

And why is it splitting hairs to insist that unity does not mean uniformity? Please explain.

In fact, I think the blurring of distinctions between such concepts as “unity” and “uniformity” and especially between “Roman” and “Latin” on the one hand and “Catholic” on the other (too many people think they are the same) can cause a lot of problems and misunderstanding.

BTW–does anyone here know what the Zoghby initiative is?

I have to say I agree with you. Although the Eastern Catholic Churches are in complete union with the Bishop of Rome, they should never adopt the same liturgy as the Western Church.

What I’m saying is that in the Western Church liturgical uniformity and a universal liturgical language could be of great benefit, and could show that the Catholic Church is not just for some peoples within the jurisdiction of the Latin Church, but for all of them. Heh, how do you like that? Now you can’t get me with the rhetoric.

And I do know what the Zoghby initiative is, and both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have been very weary of it. Sharing of sacraments and the Holy Eucharist between Orthodox and Melkite Catholics is not the best idea. Sharing of the sacraments should be the last step in union, not the first.

 

[Layman]

I think we should start a debate on making some changes to Eastern rites along the lines of “The Spirit Of Vatican II”.

Could an Eastern Catholic priest get away with versus-populum, guitars, bare churches, CITH, EMHCs, altering texts, and the liturgy in the local dialect, by referring to this ‘spirit’, (since none of these changes was actually mandated by the Council)?

Any, the original question was, “Should Latin be used at Mass”, which implies we’re talking about the Roman rite, does it not?

So, I say, yes, for two other reasons, in addition to the ones mentioned above:

• It’s a very simple language to learn, compared to many others;
• It’s very musical; many words end in ‘ah’, ‘ee’, ‘oh’, ‘ay’ and ‘oom’. It’s very good for singing, like Italian.

As I think a saint said, “When you sing, you pray twice”.

Attend and support the TLM and reclaim your spiritual inheritance!

 

[NFrancis]

Yeah, I now am more convinced that Latin should be used for Mass in the Roman Rite. It isn’t that hard to memorize the prayers in Latin and it is our tradition. Latin sounds a lot better and is better to sing.

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

I’m surprised that everybody here is so hot under the collar. That’s a separate issue, a maturity issue.

For one thing, Latin was used in the Roman Rite for around 400 years. What we are supposed to be saying in English these days is what the Latin said. Latin is the reference for the English Mass, no?

One of the problems in this translation had to do with the creed. “Credo in unum Deum” means “I believe in one God.”

But, we’ve been saying “We believe in one God” and I think this is going to be changed back to “I believe in one God.”

Credo - I believe. Credemus - We believe.

I don’t like what I see being passed off as the Latin Mass on EWTN. I never, never saw a Latin Mass like the ones that those priests say at the “Shrine” in Hanceville (or wherever that is). The ordinary Latin Mass I used to serve took from 20 minutes to 60 minutes, Not 150 minutes like on EWTN. Papal Masses from Rome seldom take so long as those Latin Masses on EWTN. The only one really kicking for a Latin Mass on EWTN was Mother Angelica.

I don’t see the advantage of the priest saying “Dominus vobiscum” rather than “The Lord be with you.” These are totally equivalent, and certainly there is no theological difference between them. What the deal is, Mother Angelica wants people to do what SHE says. I don’t believe there’s any regular Masses that are half-Latin and half-English, as we see daily on EWTN.

I think a big reason for keeping the Latin Mass as authorized is to educate a lot seminarians and nuns in Latin, because so many of the Church documents are in Latin. The Second Vatican Council was conducted in Latin. It’s to keep the language alive, and I don’t object to that.

okay, the Mass you see on EWTN is how the Mass is supposed to be. sometimes it may not be like that. The Classical Mass without a choir to sing the chants can be a bore to people who aren’t fans of the Mass when it is beautiful. but that’s how it’s meant to be. A sung Mass is supposed to be the norm.
And the Classical Mass is being kept alive because people think it is a beautiful piece of liturgy, not just to learn Latin.

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

Yeah, I now am more convinced that Latin should be used for Mass in the Roman Rite. It isn’t that hard to memorize the prayers in Latin and it is our tradition. Latin sounds a lot better and is better to sing.

Exactly. I didn’t know any Latin before I saw the Classical Mass for the first time. Now I can say Psalm 42, the Confiteor, the Gloria and Credo in Latin right now without help. The more you go, the more you know. Repitition is key to memorization. As far as tradition, that is right; Fr. Z. (wdtprs.com) says it our patrimony, if I remember correctly.

 

[gabriel22a]

First, your posts are difficult to read. Use the “quote” function like everyone else.
Second, how small are you trying to get those hairs you’re splitting?

Bpbasilphx–

Just wanted to chime in that I don’t find you snarky or offensive. I read through threads fast and when one catches my eye I look at the poster’s name–often it’s you! I think you bring a refreshing and educational view to the forum. Just my opinion.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Thank you gabriel.

I wish people would understand something.

NEVER have I said a word against either the use of Latin as a liturgical language, or the EF. I support ALL the authorized liturgies of the Church, and they are all equal. I just happen to prefer the Byzantine tradition.

But I’ve noticed a certain attitude among devotees of the EF, who seem to claim it has an intrinsic spiritual superiority or pre-eminence over the other Liturgies.

Is this due to spiritual triumphalism–or a seige mentatlity?

 

[thunderballs75]

Thank you gabriel.

I wish people would understand something.

NEVER have I said a word against either the use of Latin as a liturgical language, or the EF. I support ALL the authorized liturgies of the Church, and they are all equal. I just happen to prefer the Byzantine tradition.

But I’ve noticed a certain attitude among devotees of the EF, who seem to claim it has an intrinsic spiritual superiority or pre-eminence over the other Liturgies.

Is this due to spiritual triumphalism–or a seige mentatlity?

I don’t think it is superior to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy in any way. However, when compared to the OF, I believe the EF is more beneficial in the transformation of the believer.

However, in this thread, we are discussing the use of Latin in the Western Church for practical reasons. The language itself is not “spiritually superior”.

 

[gabriel22a]

BTW–does anyone here know what the Zoghby initiative is?

I’ll bite. What is the Zoghby initiative?

 

[thunderballs75]

I don’t think it is superior to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy in any way. However, when compared to the OF, I believe the EF is generally more beneficial in the transformation of the believer.

However, in this thread, we are discussing the use of Latin in the Western Church for practical reasons. The language itself is not “spiritually superior”.

 

[sancte_joseph]

Thank you gabriel.

I wish people would understand something.

NEVER have I said a word against either the use of Latin as a liturgical language, or the EF. I support ALL the authorized liturgies of the Church, and they are all equal. I just happen to prefer the Byzantine tradition.

But I’ve noticed a certain attitude among devotees of the EF, who seem to claim it has an intrinsic spiritual superiority or pre-eminence over the other Liturgies.

Is this due to spiritual triumphalism–or a seige mentatlity?

Yea I think someone has already replied but… It’s not because we think it’s superior to any Liturgy i would especially respect the Byzantine Tradition… but sometimes throughout these forums… you sound (at least to a couple people here) that YOU think you and your BYZANTINE tradition are superior. and that hurts some of our ego’s…

 

[Middleman]

I used to like the idea of using Latin at the Mass, but now I’m not sure.

       I like the idea of being able to go to Mass anywhere and know what is being said, but most people don't travel much and it would be too burdensome for everyone to learn Latin to know what is being said at mass.  

       Historically, first Greek was used and then it changed to Latin so that more people could understand what was being said because Latin was used as a universal language in the cities.  (I think this is right).  Most people today do not know Latin and I think just as it was change from Greek to Latin, it is a good idea to have Mass said in the vernacular so that people can understand.

      If there was a universal language for Mass I think a spoken language like Portuguese would be better.  Maybe Italian since that is where Rome is.  However than it wouldn't be much of a Latin rite anymore.  However Latin really isn't used in Mass much now anyways so the term Latin isn't very descriptive of the rite anymore.  

      I do like the EF a lot because it seems a lot more reverent.  I kind of wish the EF could be said in the Vernacular or else the OF was more reverent.  

      I have memorized prayers in Latin and think it sounds a lot better than in English and sometimes I think I can focus better but, I guess I just don't know what I think.

You make some excellent points. I agree.

 

[bpbasilphx]

you sound (at least to a couple people here) that YOU think you and your BYZANTINE tradition are superior. and that hurts some of our ego’s…

---

**What I speak against–and look closely–is the statment that the EF is “the mass of the ages” or “the mass of all time.”

It’s not.

It can’t be, beause it’s not as old as the Eastern Liturgies.**

 

[thunderballs75]

you sound (at least to a couple people here) that YOU think you and your BYZANTINE tradition are superior. and that hurts some of our ego’s…

---

**What I speak against–and look closely–is the statment that the EF is “the mass of the ages” or “the mass of all time.”

It’s not.

It can’t be, beause it’s not as old as the Eastern Liturgies.**

Let’s also remember that the Divine Liturgy of St John Chyrosostom wasn’t created until 400 years after Christ. Interestingly, this is the same amount of time since the Mass of Pius V was created. If we’re talking according to age, the only Liturgy which could fit this definition might be the Divine Liturgy of St. James.

But when we speak of “Mass of the ages” we do not speak of it in terms of actual age. We mean this according to how St. Pius V canonized it and set forth that we should, in his words, “…let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world…” We’re not talking about how old it is, but that it was meant never to be lost. Nor that it should be drastically changed, except by organic development (Don’t pounce on me yet, because I’m not saying that it was completely the product of organic development in its first form).