Why should Latin be used at mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NFrancis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NFrancis

Guest
I used to like the idea of using Latin at the Mass, but now I’m not sure.
Code: 
       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.
 
Well, of course there is obviously as you said, the ability to say the same prayers anywhere. And I don’t know what you mean that this isn’t big. Pilgrims go all over the world. Millions of people flock each year to Lourdes, Fatima, the Holy Land, Rome, etc.

-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.
-It is the language most of the saints used in their Masses.
-It allows the doctrines to be handed down untainted by a mistranslation. Look at how a whole tradition was abandoned when it turned “Et cum spiritu tuo” into “And also with you.” There are many other examples where the translation is controversial.
-It allows parishes not to be divided along racial lines. For instance, where I live the English Mass-goers (mostly Whites) almost never worship with the Spanish Mass-goers (mostly Hispanic), and there is little interaction.
 
Thunder just about covered it all.

Mass should be the same in Japan as it is in Canada, in Australia as in Russia.

And it once was.

But it should be again!
 
thunderballs75 said:
Mass-goers (mostly Whites) almost never worship with the Spanish Mass-goers (mostly Hispanic), and there is little interaction.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY! this comment just caught my eye… I am hispanic… And i love when i go to the latin mass in my city… i generalize it as the “latin” mass because it offers the EF and the OF of the mass in latin!

Anyway in which ever one i go… there is a diversity of people that come together to worship in the one universal language…

It’s just AMAZING when the priest says “Dominus Vobiscum” and I respond along with some people who can speak perfect english, broken english, or no english at all… “Et cum spiritu tuo!!!”

just my two cents
 
When the Mass first began to be said in the vernacular, it was just about the same as the usual Tridentine Mass - but in English. I am old enough to remember that, and it was every bit as reverent.
Later on, when the altar was turned around, things began to change.
I would have no problem with the Mass being in English, if it were the same Mass as it always used to be until 1962.
But now that I have found a Latin Mass to attend which isn’t terribly far from my home, I go there exclusively.
 
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.

**Actually, historically Aramaic was first used. Only in Rome and the West was Latin used. Neverthless, educated people in the West still knew Greek as well.

The Latin rite was celebrated in Chinese once upon a time, and was celebrated in Slavonic for centuries before Vatican 2.

Contrary to what some people think, Latin was never universal.

Greek, Aramaic, Syriac (which is related), Slavonic, and other languages are still used today.

**
… However Latin really isn’t used in Mass much now anyways so the term Latin isn’t very descriptive of the rite anymore.

You’ve really got a weird idea here. Where did you get it? The typical editions of liturgical books of the Roman rite (proper name, btw) are STILL issued in Latin. Pope Benedict uses Latin all the time.

+++++++++++++++++

Mass should be the same in Japan as it is in Canada, in Australia as in Russia.

And it once was.

**And it never was. Where did you get that idea?

St. Augustine, when sent to England by Pope St. Gregory, marvelled that the churches of Gaul simply didn’t do everything the way he was used to in Rome. And the Pope wisely replied, “It is not necessary that the prayers of all the churches be the same, as long as the faith is the same. Take the good customs you see in the different churches and use them in England.”

Furthermore, “Mass” should never be in Latin in Russia, as the Byzantine Liturgy is the historical liturgy of the Russian Christians.

I’m sorry, but the notion that the Mass was ever the same everywhere is simply a myth that has no basis in reality.**
 
bpbasilphx said:
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.

**Actually, historically Aramaic was first used. Only in Rome and the West was Latin used. Neverthless, educated people in the West still knew Greek as well.

The Latin rite was celebrated in Chinese once upon a time, and was celebrated in Slavonic for centuries before Vatican 2.

Contrary to what some people think, Latin was never universal.

Greek, Aramaic, Syriac (which is related), Slavonic, and other languages are still used today.

**
… However Latin really isn’t used in Mass much now anyways so the term Latin isn’t very descriptive of the rite anymore.

You’ve really got a weird idea here. Where did you get it? The typical editions of liturgical books of the Roman rite (proper name, btw) are STILL issued in Latin. Pope Benedict uses Latin all the time.

+++++++++++++++++

Mass should be the same in Japan as it is in Canada, in Australia as in Russia.

And it once was.

**And it never was. Where did you get that idea?

St. Augustine, when sent to England by Pope St. Gregory, marvelled that the churches of Gaul simply didn’t do everything the way he was used to in Rome. And the Pope wisely replied, “It is not necessary that the prayers of all the churches be the same, as long as the faith is the same. Take the good customs you see in the different churches and use them in England.”

Furthermore, “Mass” should never be in Latin in Russia, as the Byzantine Liturgy is the historical liturgy of the Russian Christians.

I’m sorry, but the notion that the Mass was ever the same everywhere is simply a myth that has no basis in reality.**
Click to expand...
From my understanding, these are rare exceptions (except for Greek being mainly used before Latin). The majority of Latin Rite Masses in the last 1300 years would have been in Latin. And most certainly for the last 500 years.
 
bpbasilphx said:
St. Augustine, when sent to England by Pope St. Gregory, marvelled that the churches of Gaul simply didn’t do everything the way he was used to in Rome. And the Pope wisely replied, “It is not necessary that the prayers of all the churches be the same, as long as the faith is the same. Take the good customs you see in the different churches and use them in England.”

Furthermore, “Mass” should never be in Latin in Russia, as the Byzantine Liturgy is the historical liturgy of the Russian Christians.

I’m sorry, but the notion that the Mass was ever the same everywhere is simply a myth that has no basis in reality.
Click to expand...
O COME ON! your using the “technically” method in disproving it.
Well technically Lincoln didn’t free all the slaves just the ones from the south.
Well technically It was suppose to rain today but it didn’t.

Firstly, you keep quoting these popes as if everything they said was infallible, I would think that I as a Roman Catholic would do that instead of you who are orthodox.

Secondly Pope Gregory was before the council of Trent mandated the Roman Missal everywhere…

FURTHERMORE the mass is understood to be as the Roman Catholic mass… because other rites refer to it as the Divine Liturgy… Even Meronites who have always been loyal to the Pope/Rome call there “mass” the Divine Liturgy
 
And it never was. Where did you get that idea?
Click to expand...
St. Augustine, when sent to England by Pope St. Gregory, marvelled that the churches of Gaul simply didn’t do everything the way he was used to in Rome. And the Pope wisely replied, “It is not necessary that the prayers of all the churches be the same, as long as the faith is the same. Take the good customs you see in the different churches and use them in England.”
Click to expand...
Furthermore, “Mass” should never be in Latin in Russia, as the Byzantine Liturgy is the historical liturgy of the Russian Christians.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but the notion that the Mass was ever the same everywhere is simply a myth that has no basis in reality.
Click to expand...
BpBasilx (or whatever it is) is splitting hairs.

Sometimes I think (s)he argues against everyone just because (s)he likes to.

Lain IS the universal language of the Roman church (which is what I was talking about, not Orthodox) even if it’s not the native tongue of the members. Latin gives us the universality our name demands- Catholic- universal.

Of course dioceses and parishes will have their differences. That’s just how things work- different churches might do this or that a tiny bit different, have their own traditions. But when it comes to the brass tacks, the nuts-and-bolts, the RUBRICS, they should all be the same. And they, for the most part, WERE all the same.

Latin is the glue that binds us together as Roman Catholics. When we no longer have that glue, we fall apart.
 
“Contrary to what some people think, Latin was never universal.”

Universal enough to be called “Catholic.” 🙂
 
I understand what Bishop Basil is saying from an historical point of view. We need to be more specific in our terminology. When we use terms like Catholic equals universal and imply that all Catholics are universal, we ignore the other lung of the Church - our Eastern brethren - those united to HMC and our separated brethren.

Within the Western church, yes. Here in Roman Catholic south Louisiana at my cathedral parish we get French tourists. Forty-five years ago they could have attended Mass and participated. Now, they stand during the Consecration (so much for the “unity” of HMC) while all the rest of us are kneeling.

Thirty-seven years ago, I was in the Navy and in Rota, Spain. I paid a visit to the local church in Rota and the old priest came out. (I surmise that it was very unusual for him to see American sailors). In my halting Spanish I told him that I had been an altar boy.
He said to me “Introibo ad altare Dei”…to which I replied “Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam”. Fr. showed me the ancient vestments and the crypt of the church.
The power of Latin to unify.
 
**Oh, my. Some people seem very upset with evidence that the Roman mass was never everywhere the same, even after Trent.

Did you throw such a fit when you heard about Santa Claus, too?

___________**

Secondly Pope Gregory was before the council of Trent mandated the Roman Missal everywhere…

FURTHERMORE the mass is understood to be as the Roman Catholic mass… because other rites refer to it as the Divine Liturgy… Even Meronites who have always been loyal to the Pope/Rome call there “mass” the Divine Liturgy
**Actually, Trent did NOT mandate the Roman Mass “everywhere.” Those liturgical uses that were 200 years old could continue.

I’ve heard plenty of Eastern Catholics use the term “mass” for the various Eastern liturgies.**
Here in Roman Catholic south Louisiana at my cathedral parish we get French tourists. Forty-five years ago they could have attended Mass and participated. Now, they stand during the Consecration (so much for the “unity” of HMC) while all the rest of us are kneeling.
Unity NEVER meant uniformity, though some people confuse the two.
 
bpbasilphx said:
**Oh, my. Some people seem very upset with evidence that the Roman mass was never everywhere the same, even after Trent.

Did you throw such a fit when you heard about Santa Claus, too?

___________**

Secondly Pope Gregory was before the council of Trent mandated the Roman Missal everywhere…

FURTHERMORE the mass is understood to be as the Roman Catholic mass… because other rites refer to it as the Divine Liturgy… Even Meronites who have always been loyal to the Pope/Rome call there “mass” the Divine Liturgy
**Actually, Trent did NOT mandate the Roman Mass “everywhere.” Those liturgical uses that were 200 years old could continue.

I’ve heard plenty of Eastern Catholics use the term “mass” for the various Eastern liturgies.**
Here in Roman Catholic south Louisiana at my cathedral parish we get French tourists. Forty-five years ago they could have attended Mass and participated. Now, they stand during the Consecration (so much for the “unity” of HMC) while all the rest of us are kneeling.
Unity NEVER meant uniformity, though some people confuse the two.
Click to expand...
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?
 
I think this “unity” position is sometimes erroneous, because we are forgetting about the various Eastern Catholic churches, that use Russian, Greek, English, Slavonic, Ukrainian, etc.
 
Religio71 said:
I think this “unity” position is sometimes erroneous, because we are forgetting about the various Eastern Catholic churches, that use Russian, Greek, English, Slavonic, Ukrainian, etc.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not, because when we say “Latin” we mean Roman Catholic, not Eastern.
 
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.
 
Sancto_Spiritu said:
No, it’s not, because when we say “Latin” we mean Roman Catholic, not Eastern.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Sancto_Spiritu said:
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?
Click to expand...
Just so you know, bpbasilphx is an Orthodox Bishop. While he’s not Catholic, he deserves the respect due any validly ordained cleric. I’m not scolding you, just letting you know.
 
Fuerza said:
Just so you know, bpbasilphx is an Orthodox Bishop. While he’s not Catholic, he deserves the respect due any validly ordained cleric. I’m not scolding you, just letting you know.
Click to expand...
That’s fine. If that’s the case, I’ll respect his office, but he’s been incredibly snarky in his posts here, in my short forum experience. I should hope he has a more pastoral attitude in his diocese than he does here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top