Why shouldn't Catholics learn Latin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thunderballs75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi, Again!

I must admit that I cannot keep up with every post in this thread due to lack of time, so I hope I’m not just reiterating a point made that I missed.

Personally, I’m not particularly strong on going back, or NOT going back to Latin. One of the problems discussed in the thread is the lack of knowledge and awareness of so many of the people about basic truths such as the Real Presence. I don’t think that saying the Mass in Latin is the solution. It may contribute to the solution, but, here is a complex problem that cannot be solved (on the human level) with a simple answer. This lack of knowledge comes from spritual, social, sociological, psychological and educational sources and need responses on those levels.

In short, based on my limited experience of Catholic parishes in several parts of the country from Northeast to Midwest, we need serious adult faith formation on steroids that includes parish libraries, bulletin articles, homilies, classes, brochures, power-point presentations etc. etc. in a wholistic, strategicly organized formational blitz on a national level so everyone is getting it. We need preachers who explicitly speak of the Real Presence, of the need for Adoration, of the Immaculate Conception. We need to speak the truth plainly, clearly and convincingly. I suggest we do not do that.

What does that have to do with the Latin issue? I think that what some want to attribute to the change to the vernacular cannot be blamed on the move away from the Latin. I think they are concommitent symptoms of a deeper, or at least a different problem.

So, the question of why shouldn’t Catholics learn Latin? I shrug my shoulders. Maybe we should. But, I don’t think it will solve, in and of itself, other problems.

Pax Christi;
George
 
michaeldaniels said:
That is your perception on it…personally, I think you are way, way off
Click to expand...
I can live with that.🙂

… But if God is so concerned about the language he hears. Why is confession in english?

I know you probably wrote me off as a crank after you read my last comment… so be it.

Everyone heard nothing but Latin from the Celebrant during the years after The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared at Fatima. That fact had no influence on the outcome of her warnings.

… but I honestly think that the problems of the church have little to do with the
em-PHA-sis being on the wrong syl-LAB-le.
 
CatholicGeorge said:
Hi, Again!

I must admit that I cannot keep up with every post in this thread due to lack of time, so I hope I’m not just reiterating a point made that I missed.

Personally, I’m not particularly strong on going back, or NOT going back to Latin. One of the problems discussed in the thread is the lack of knowledge and awareness of so many of the people about basic truths such as the Real Presence. I don’t think that saying the Mass in Latin is the solution. It may contribute to the solution, but, here is a complex problem that cannot be solved (on the human level) with a simple answer. This lack of knowledge comes from spritual, social, sociological, psychological and educational sources and need responses on those levels.

In short, based on my limited experience of Catholic parishes in several parts of the country from Northeast to Midwest, we need serious adult faith formation on steroids that includes parish libraries, bulletin articles, homilies, classes, brochures, power-point presentations etc. etc. in a wholistic, strategicly organized formational blitz on a national level so everyone is getting it. We need preachers who explicitly speak of the Real Presence, of the need for Adoration, of the Immaculate Conception. We need to speak the truth plainly, clearly and convincingly. I suggest we do not do that.

What does that have to do with the Latin issue? I think that what some want to attribute to the change to the vernacular cannot be blamed on the move away from the Latin. I think they are concommitent symptoms of a deeper, or at least a different problem.

So, the question of why shouldn’t Catholics learn Latin? I shrug my shoulders. Maybe we should. But, I don’t think it will solve, in and of itself, other problems.

Pax Christi;
George
Click to expand...
I read a short book that was given to me as a young man that transformed everything for me.
It is a book called “The Practice of the Presence of God” by Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection.
He was a Cloistered Brother who lived from 1614 to 1691 … he describes his relationship with God the Father and the Holy Spirit in terms that anyone with a simple willingness to pursue …can achieve.

The book is still in publication … and I honestly believe that within its pages are the solution to every difficulty that the church faces.

I searched just now and found the book in its entirety online.

practicegodspresence.com/brotherlawrence/
 
thunderballs75 said:
Do you honestly think more souls have been saved since we introduced the vernacular? Do you honestly believe more people believe in the real presence? The four last things? That the Catholic Church is the one true Church? That Jesus Christ is the saviour? Do you honestly believe that this is more common and understood than before? The traditional liturgy and Latin have made me much more grounded in the Faith. I think it is something which encourages you to grow in your faith, not the opposite.
Click to expand...
The issues you poimt out are simply post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguments.

As to souls saved, neither you nor I nor anyone else knows the answer on this side of the veil. And until we are dead and there is final judgement, we won’t know either.

Mass attendance, since that seems to be an anchor we can work from, started falling off after the peak which was 1957-8. so if Latin, which was continuing on for another 10 years or so, was so all hot, why did people start leaving?

Other reasons, the primary one being the secluarization of society in general. Interestingly, there wa no sharp drop-off anywhere along the line, excet for a bump upwards in 2000, the Jubilee year. The next year it returned to about the 1999 average.

As to the real presence, that has to do with catechesis, and the failure to teach doctrine, which started int he late 1960’s and early 1970’s and is unrelated to Latin or vernacular.

In part, you are not arguing about Latin, but about the EF/OF issues; and you can take that position if you wish; however, it again goes directly to catechesis. People as a whole did not read Latin and even fewer spoke Latin prior to the entry of the vernacular, but most of them were taught out of the Baltimore Catechism, which was specific to the issues you raise. Some people used a missal; many did not own one and parishes did not supply them.

Your point is not made that Latin had anything to do with either what people know, or what they did not learn after we went to the vernacular.
 
thunderballs75 said:
I would be willing to bet my house on it that if you took a typical OF Mass and a typical EF Mass, took a poll of the laity present, that the ones at the EF go to confession more often, understand the sacraments better, and pray more often. No offense to anybody who goes to the OF.
Click to expand...
All of which has little or nothing to do with Latin, and nothing in and of itself for the EF vs. the OF.

The EF is attracting some people. Those who are attracted in general, and particularly if the attraction is more than just a passing curiosity, are going to be reasonably well educated in the faith. However, it is not a logical process that if one is well educated in the Faith, one is going to prefer the EF. There are about 19,000 parishes in the US. I have not been able to come up with numbers very well, but as best I can find, it appears that the EF is being celebrated in something about 2/10ths to 1/2 percent of all parishes in the US. If I am wrong on those figures, I certainly would like to find a better source of information.

But that aside, it is simply specious to presume that there are not many well trained Catholics attending the OF; given the vast number of parishes that celebrate it, and the vast majority which attends it, and given the status of catechesis over the last 40 years, it should surprise no one that a whole lot of people attending Mass regularly are not well catechized; but that fact has to do with the loss of the Baltimore Catechism with nothing better replacing it until about 10 to maybe 15 years ago as a start.

And the bottom line is they attend and do so regularly.

Oh, and as an aside, our archdiocese has something like 7 parishes in and close to Portland which have 24 hour perpetual adoration - and none of them celebrate the EF. So while you are castigating the unwashed and ignorant masses, they are going into the chapel and praying.

In English, no less.

And I already have a house.👍
 
Much is made about the protests as the Mass was changed from the EF to the OF. What is not mentioned is that the vast majority of people did not protest. Why?

Because the vast majority did not know Latin; most of that majority did not know Latin well enough to read it slowly, let alone speak it. Latin was primarily taught as a translated alnguage, not a spoken language. That is, you would get some text, and you would translate it into English; and for a hard test, you would get some text in English and have to translate it into Latin. However, not all students, or even a majority learned Latin.

How do I know this? I took Latin in high school, starting with one high school that taught it in the standard fashion - translated - and transfered to another high school which taught it as a spoken language. 3rd year Latin; the teacher asked a question, hands went up; I sat there translating it into English, then and answer back into latin, and by the time I was done, I was three to five questions behind. And in neither high school was Latin mandatory for all students; some took German; some French, and some Spanish. A few took Latin.

I did not survive that class; but I also started taking Homeric Greek - as a translated language (we read Odissious and his journey) and in 4th year a bit of koinae Greek. I did fine there.

I then went to college seminary where I took 2 more years of college Latin, again as a translated language. I did as well or better than a couple of my classmates from the second high school, who were more accustomed to a question - response pattern.

The net of what happened is that most people took to the vernacular as the proverbial duck to water.

I am always amused by those who have memorized a prayer or series of prayers in Latin, and insist they have “learned” Latin. Toss an ablative or a gerund or a past pluperfect their way and they would have absolutely no clue what you have just done to them. They do not “know” Latin; they have simply memorized a prayer, and given the parallels between English and Latin, they can pretty much identify what most of the words mean either way. Can they read anything else in Latin? Nope.

And yes, I used a missal when I was young, at the EF. But given that I prefer to listen to the words spoken, as opposed ot trying to read and trying to pace my reading to what the priest is saying, What is the point? latin at that point, if I or someone else doesn’t understand it, is being used “Because that’s the way we always did it”, rather than because of any other reason. It reminds me of the story about the young husband who asks his new bride why she cut off 1/3 of the roast before she put it in the pan…

I like the sound of Latin. I love Gregorian chant well done, and am pained beyond my ability to endure when it is not well done. and even my beloved Trappsits can no longer do chant decently, even in English; but that has mroe to do with age than anything. But anyone who thinks that bringing Latin back will cure anything, or is even likely (and here, I mean totally, not just the Sanctus and maybe the Creed and Agnus Dei in Latin), well, I have some fabulous ocean front property for sale in ARizona. Boy, can I make you a deal!

However, back to the OP’s question: Latin is an excellent base for learing English, and may be helpful if one wants to learn another Romance language. However, even in the 1960’s (early) Latin was falling off as a language to be learned, and was more reserved for the honors type courses. while it is making its way back into the cirriculum, it has to fight for existence. And beyond, say, an honors course, it is not likely to gain traction anywhere.
 
otjm said:
Much is made about the protests as the Mass was changed from the EF to the OF. What is not mentioned is that the vast majority of people did not protest. Why?

Because the vast majority did not know Latin; most of that majority did not know Latin well enough to read it slowly, let alone speak it. Latin was primarily taught as a translated alnguage, not a spoken language. That is, you would get some text, and you would translate it into English; and for a hard test, you would get some text in English and have to translate it into Latin. However, not all students, or even a majority learned Latin.

How do I know this? I took Latin in high school, starting with one high school that taught it in the standard fashion - translated - and transfered to another high school which taught it as a spoken language. 3rd year Latin; the teacher asked a question, hands went up; I sat there translating it into English, then and answer back into latin, and by the time I was done, I was three to five questions behind. And in neither high school was Latin mandatory for all students; some took German; some French, and some Spanish. A few took Latin.

I did not survive that class; but I also started taking Homeric Greek - as a translated language (we read Odissious and his journey) and in 4th year a bit of koinae Greek. I did fine there.

I then went to college seminary where I took 2 more years of college Latin, again as a translated language. I did as well or better than a couple of my classmates from the second high school, who were more accustomed to a question - response pattern.

The net of what happened is that most people took to the vernacular as the proverbial duck to water.

I am always amused by those who have memorized a prayer or series of prayers in Latin, and insist they have “learned” Latin. Toss an ablative or a gerund or a past pluperfect their way and they would have absolutely no clue what you have just done to them. They do not “know” Latin; they have simply memorized a prayer, and given the parallels between English and Latin, they can pretty much identify what most of the words mean either way. Can they read anything else in Latin? Nope.

And yes, I used a missal when I was young, at the EF. But given that I prefer to listen to the words spoken, as opposed ot trying to read and trying to pace my reading to what the priest is saying, What is the point? latin at that point, if I or someone else doesn’t understand it, is being used “Because that’s the way we always did it”, rather than because of any other reason. It reminds me of the story about the young husband who asks his new bride why she cut off 1/3 of the roast before she put it in the pan…

I like the sound of Latin. I love Gregorian chant well done, and am pained beyond my ability to endure when it is not well done. and even my beloved Trappsits can no longer do chant decently, even in English; but that has mroe to do with age than anything. But anyone who thinks that bringing Latin back will cure anything, or is even likely (and here, I mean totally, not just the Sanctus and maybe the Creed and Agnus Dei in Latin), well, I have some fabulous ocean front property for sale in ARizona. Boy, can I make you a deal!

However, back to the OP’s question: Latin is an excellent base for learing English, and may be helpful if one wants to learn another Romance language. However, even in the 1960’s (early) Latin was falling off as a language to be learned, and was more reserved for the honors type courses. while it is making its way back into the cirriculum, it has to fight for existence. And beyond, say, an honors course, it is not likely to gain traction anywhere.
Click to expand...
I also opted in for 2 years of Latin in school. I had a similar experience to yours. I was an altar boy and learned all of the responses in Latin. Immediately following my training the Latin was replaced by English.
The change was contreversial but the overwhelming response was a sense that the Church was listening to the people. There had been a growing sense among the Catholic community that I grew up in that those in authority had become distant, defensive, authoritarian, uncaring. The change to the vernacular was received as a breath of fresh air. It felt like open arms that embraced those who were growing weary of wrote meaningless ritual.
 
1way said:
I also opted in for 2 years of Latin in school. I had a similar experience to yours. I was an altar boy and learned all of the responses in Latin. Immediately following my training the Latin was replaced by English.
The change was contreversial but the overwhelming response was a sense that the Church was listening to the people. There had been a growing sense among the Catholic community that I grew up in that ***those in authority had become distant, defensive, authoritarian, uncaring. ***The change to the vernacular was received as a breath of fresh air. It felt like open arms that embraced those who were growing weary of wrote meaningless ritual.
Click to expand...
so overnight those same authorities who were yesterday distant, defensive, authoritarian and uncaring became close, non-defensive, collegial and caring? all because the Mass was in the vernacular?

Is anyone else confused by the above post?
 
1way said:
I also opted in for 2 years of Latin in school. I had a similar experience to yours. I was an altar boy and learned all of the responses in Latin. Immediately following my training the Latin was replaced by English.
The change was contreversial but the overwhelming response was a sense that the Church was listening to the people. There had been a growing sense among the Catholic community that I grew up in that those in authority had become distant, defensive, authoritarian, uncaring. The change to the vernacular was received as a breath of fresh air. It felt like open arms that embraced those who were growing** weary of wrote meaningless ritual**.
Click to expand...
This idea of wrote meaningless ritual is the result of poor to non existent catechesis among both young people and adults of the day. People got in the habit of only going through the motions(which still happens a lot today) and really did not know why. The answer was not to remodel the faith, but to properly catechize.
 
maurin said:
so overnight those same authorities who were yesterday distant, defensive, authoritarian and uncaring became close, non-defensive, collegial and caring? all because the Mass was in the vernacular?

Is anyone else confused by the above post?
Click to expand...
I am not confused by the post; not because of what 1way wrote, but because of my own experience of the Church.

The question might be framed differently: were the authorites changed, or was it people’s perceptions of these authorites what was changed?

Most people have never personally met a bishop. Were the bishop to come to the parish and celebrate Mass, personal habits would most likely continue; those who scoot out early would do so; those who leave by the side door to get coffee and donuts would do so; those who would smile and walk past the pastor with a “good morning” would do so, and the few who either knew him or wanted to meet him would do so. And the whole group would know the bishop not much better after the Mass than they did before.

People’s perceptions of bishops and Cardinals, and for that matter, the Pope, are fashioned by what they (the people) read (so if you want the spectrum, pretty much National Catholic Review on the left, National Catholic Register in the middle, and the Wanderer on the right), and most people never have seen one of those papers; the public press, and talk with other Catholics who may have had the same sources.

With the Mass going to the vernacular, people’s perceptions of the hierarchy could all too easily see them favorably with no more (name removed by moderator)ut than that the vernacular had arrived, and they could understand what the priest was saying without having to try to read it somewhere.

My mother is 92; raised as 4th generation Oregonian and coming from a small, Dutch farm community; she graduated from a high school with a number of classmates that can be counted on two hands (as in lsee than 10). She has followed Church laws and regulations without question; took us all to Mother of Perpetual Hope devotions (she was losing my dad to brain cancer, so she had a bit of motivation to attend novenas), went to work when she really wanted to stay at home; raised 4 kids through Cathlic grade and high schools, and didn’t (and to this day doesn’t) know a whole lot more about her faith than what she learned from the Baltimore Catechism. But until about 4 months ago, she would drive herself about 5 miles to daily Mass.

I asked her one day what she thought about the changes of Vatican 2, what was most significant; her comment was putting the Mass in English. She thought it was the best thing that had ever happened.

She is not a sophisticated theologian; she is just a Christian struggling with her remaining days. She dosn’t know who Archbishop Lefabvre was, or what the SSPX was about; she likes the Trappists and I think is secretly glad I didn’t jopin them when I was in seminary; Gregorian chant is fine and so is whatever is in the OCP hymnal, as she can’t carry a note in a wash tub if it had a lid on it; in other words, she is typical of a whole lot of Catholics out there.

Her comment is typical also of a whole lot of people out there. You could talk to them until you are blue in the face about the differences between the EF and the OF on any given prayer - translation, change, addition, deletion, God-transcendent or God-imminent; they would look at you and smile and say that’s nice. The long and short of it is that they don’t have an opinion about that. And the statistics are interesting: age-wise the goup that attends Mass weekly in the largest percentage is those who were pre-Vatican 2 Catholics. It was a group of pre-Vatican 2 Catholics who continued to request the EF be made available; but if the posts in these fora are to be taken as fairly accurate, it seems that the age group that is most attracted to the EF is the young.

And short of dismissive answers, very little is said why a group that may (as exemplified by my mother) have attended the EF for 20, 30, or 40+ years of their lives are satisfied with the OF.

I suspect that the change to the vernacular is the largest reason.
 
maurin said:
so overnight those same authorities who were yesterday distant, defensive, authoritarian and uncaring became close, non-defensive, collegial and caring? all because the Mass was in the vernacular?

Is anyone else confused by the above post?
Click to expand...
The change to the vernacular was not the Holy Grail any more than sticking with Latin would be.
The response to the change was simply a pleasant surprise to most of the Catholics in the Pittsburgh community that I grew up in. It was evaluated as a step in the right direction at a time when people were needing some sign of humanity from what was precieved to be a very stiff and judgemental Clergy.
I attended Mass in several parishes during those years. The main topic of discussion was how the Homily was always devoted in part to humiliating the people in the back of the church ready to scoot ASAP.
The joke was … the beatings will continue until morale improves. Obviously the strategy never worked … an in fact the Priests simply contributed to an atmosphere that made “solemn joy” … more solemn … not so much joy for the rest of us people who would not get caught dead in the back of the church.
The multitude of my Irish Catholic uncles and aunts and family friends would repeat the same mantra …no matter which parish they attended.
" The Priests just seems to have no experience in the real world to draw from."
People need to first trust in order to have the right heart for obedience.
They need to feel cared for and about.
Changing to the vernacular was only one step but that step was huge in an environment where there were a lot of rules but no human bond.

The Catholic Church Is a fine old institution.
… but the reality back then was that most people I was acquainted with were feeling that they were just stuck in an old institution … with a cranky old headmaster.
 
it comes as no surprise that you didn’t address that which was confusing in your previous post.
 
thunderballs75 said:
I always hear that one of the main reasons some Catholics are opposed to the Latin Mass (or at least prefer English) is because they say that they can’t learn Latin. But I ask, why not? I was 15 when I learned the Latin Mass and its prayers, and it wasn’t that hard for me. It just takes a little faith and effort. My other example is to look at the Muslims. They are often willing to learn at least the basic prayers and words of Arabic in order to read the Quran. And there are more Muslims than there are Latin Rite Catholics. Why then can’t we learn a small amount of Latin to have the great gift of praying the Mass together, be it Hispanic, White, Black, Asian, etc.? Just a thought. I know that Latin is not going to become universal again, but this is why I think it isn’t impossible. What do you think?
Click to expand...
And also with you;)

It would be good if every Catholic new at least the basics regularly used in the NO Mass.

But until its forced it aint gonna happen.🤷

Love and prayers,
 
1way said:
The change to the vernacular was not the Holy Grail any more than sticking with Latin would be.
The response to the change was simply a pleasant surprise to most of the Catholics in the Pittsburgh community that I grew up in. It was evaluated as a step in the right direction at a time when people were needing some sign of humanity from what was precieved to be a very stiff and judgemental Clergy.
I attended Mass in several parishes during those years. The main topic of discussion was how the Homily was always devoted in part to humiliating the people in the back of the church ready to scoot ASAP.
The joke was … the beatings will continue until morale improves. Obviously the strategy never worked … an in fact the Priests simply contributed to an atmosphere that made “solemn joy” … more solemn … not so much joy for the rest of us people who would not get caught dead in the back of the church.
The multitude of my Irish Catholic uncles and aunts and family friends would repeat the same mantra …no matter which parish they attended.
" The Priests just seems to have no experience in the real world to draw from."
People need to first trust in order to have the right heart for obedience.
They need to feel cared for and about.
Changing to the vernacular was only one step but that step was huge in an environment where there were a lot of rules but no human bond.

The Catholic Church Is a fine old institution.
… but the reality back then was that most people I was acquainted with were feeling that they were just stuck in an old institution … with a cranky old headmaster.
Click to expand...
Just wanted to say I agree with this - reminds me of the pre-Vatican 2 parish I grew up in, cranky old headmaster and all.
 
malachi3 said:
Just wanted to say I agree with this - reminds me of the pre-Vatican 2 parish I grew up in, cranky old headmaster and all.
Click to expand...
and you’ve traded the Pearl for plastic beads. Then again, most people can’t quite seem able to tell the difference. Because they don’t care to try. Congratulations, you’ve received stones instead of bread…and you don’t know the difference.
 
michaeldaniels said:
It should be taught in all Catholic schools…and parishes without a school attached to it should teach it as well…There are those who are lazy and have no desire to learn…those that are comfortable and afraid to travel outside of their comfort zone…doing just enough to get by…For the life of me, I do understand how people do not realize the importance of the universality that Latin brings to The Church…It is beneficial for many reasons. I think it is sad that for the most part, a lot of Catholics are content with being glorified protestants…I have seen some Masses that you couldn’t tell the difference from a Lutheran or Anglican service…the Churches look like fast food restaurants now…all our statues and stain glass and beautiful Icons are gone…the religious no longer wear their habits…some priest do not wear their clerics…hardly anyone goes to confession anymore, but they still receive Communion (either everyone is ready for canonization or there is a bunch of sacriligeous Communions taking place)…they were any type of clothes they want to, to Mass…the Priest, instead of making people aware of their sins and condemning their sinful actions, they are afraid to tell people they are living wrong…women are on the Altar…and laypeople distribute Holy Communion even when their presence is not needed…This is so very sad…it breaks my heart…All of these things are happening and we are just allowing it and even advocating more radical changes to our Faith…Why the Hell should we be Catholic any longer when we are throwing away all the unique aspects of our Faith that identifies us as Catholics???
Click to expand...
I agree that every Catholic student-and every Catholic-should be offered the opportunity to learn Latin. Now that my parish has a TLM I will suggest we have a Latin class whenever we can find someone who can teach it. Latin was my favourite subject in high school and I’d like to learn more. And I love the way it’s pronounced at the Mass.

-sparkie:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top