U
umamibella
Guest
Really. Try passing an exam in biology or presenting an academic paper with lay terms insteaad of the correct scientific terminology.
Why was there hostility to the Latin Mass in 1960?
- Thread starter Francisco_Fernando
- Start date
- Status
Your comments, with which I tend to agree substantially, reflect what Bishop Sheen said about Africa (and, I think, Asia) being more suited for the Eastern liturgy than for the Roman. (Sorry, I can’t find a reference, 45 years of reading is a lot of reading.)
I would have retained the 1962 liturgy with some parts, if desired, translated into dignified, literary vernacular, and maybe a few of the more redundant rubrics whittled down. And that would have been IT.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
This is a surprise to me. I saw priests talking and joking together in Latin long after VII.
I do think there was a hostility to Latin. It required a certain degree of concentration as one followed the translation in one’s missal or ultimately simply learned the Latin. I think people who thought of the Mass as a fundamentally communal thing rather than as a fundamentally meditative thing really were hostile to the whole approach that Latin encouraged.
J
Jbrady
Guest
No one would have any problem whatsoever. Knowing stock phrases and terms borrowed into English from Latin doesn’t count as knowing Latin in any way.
I graduated with a major in Classical languages, and studied sciences and medicine. My Latin provided me with no significant advantage over my fellow students who never had a Latin lesson in their lives, and my Greek even less.
My Latin has come in useful when I got interested in medieval history, though.
U
umamibella
Guest
Now I am reminded of the resurgence of medieval horseback tournaments here in Aus. People are dressing up in full armour and charging each other with those long lances on horseback, its become quite popular.
J
Jbrady
Guest
They’re popular here in the States, too. Some of my sons’ friends are active in the Society for Creative Anachronism, which holds such events all over the country. I used to help drive them to these events. Had great fun watching. Some people take it VERY seriously.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Yes, I think the hostility was really towards the idea of Mass being some quiet meditative thing that the priest said while each person kind of prayed along quietly and didn’t really interact with others. There was a huge push through the 60s and 70s to emphasize communal aspects of the Mass. We still see this from some people today, mostly some older people who date back to the 60s and 70s, and show a lot of hostility/ rejection towards the idea that someone might want to come to Mass but then mostly pray quietly by themself instead of engaging with the community in ways such as singing, wishing the sign of peace, assuming all the communal postures (like standing instead of kneeling after Communion), etc.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Those are all liturgical abuses, so you should be able to find plenty of people rejecting them. I am not sure why anyone would accept them.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
We’ve had this exchange many times before on the forum and I accept that you think of somebody kneeling rather than standing as “Liturgical Abuse” despite the fact that bishops explicitly direct that action not be taken against anyone who chooses to kneel instead.
Also it is hardly “liturgical abuse” to sit quietly in a Mass and not participate in it. I have done this frequently, especially when I have already been to one Mass that day and I wish to sit in a church space where there is another Mass going on and pray, without necessarily participating in that Mass. At other times I have been so upset by something like a death in the family or a stomach upset that I do not feel able to participate actively in Mass but still would like to be there. The only time non-participation becomes questionable is when a person is doing it as some sort of protest of Mass or otherwise with bad faith or in a disruptive manner.
Let’s just agree to disagree on this one We are not going to reach agreement and I find your views on this to be exhibit A in support of the attitude I was just describing. Fortunately I also see this attitude declining quite a bit as the Vatican II generation fades away.
Also it is hardly “liturgical abuse” to sit quietly in a Mass and not participate in it. I have done this frequently, especially when I have already been to one Mass that day and I wish to sit in a church space where there is another Mass going on and pray, without necessarily participating in that Mass. At other times I have been so upset by something like a death in the family or a stomach upset that I do not feel able to participate actively in Mass but still would like to be there. The only time non-participation becomes questionable is when a person is doing it as some sort of protest of Mass or otherwise with bad faith or in a disruptive manner.
Let’s just agree to disagree on this one We are not going to reach agreement and I find your views on this to be exhibit A in support of the attitude I was just describing. Fortunately I also see this attitude declining quite a bit as the Vatican II generation fades away.
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
There are many things that you or I do not think are liturgical abuses, but are labeled that way. I am not one to enforce any of them, except with example. I usually do not notice these things, so that is all anyone would get out of me anyway.
But if you are going to discuss behaviors during Mass, it is helpful to know what is right and what is wrong. Everyone “should carry out solely but totally that which pertains to them.” That does not mean there are not times when something else is needed, but we should know what the norm is.
P
phil19034
Guest
I think resurrecting the African Rite would have been a good idea and also perhaps expanding the use of the Coptic Rite & Ge’ez Rite would have been wise too.
The only problem was that the Spanish, French, Portuguese, Belgians, and Italians had been exposing Africa to the Roman Rite via colonization. After learning the Roman Rite, it’s kind of hard to then say, “oh, we made a mistake, you need a different rite”
Last edited:
Perhaps offer both, and ask them “which one suits you better?”. (Though that could come across as kind of condescending, as though “we’re just trying to help you, and we know you might have a difficult time making up your mind”.)HomeschoolDad:
I think resurrecting the African Rite would have been a good idea and also perhaps expanding the use of the Coptic Rite & Ge’ez Rite would have been wise too.
The only problem was that the Spanish, French, Portuguese, Belgians, and Italians had been exposing Africa to the Roman Rite via colonization. After learning the Roman Rite, it’s kind of hard to then say, “oh, we made a mistake, you need a new rite”
Or better yet, have two parallel rites. That’s what we do now in the Roman Rite.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
This is why I think the 1970 missal Has been successful in Africa, because they were able to essentially make it their own - in many ways almost like making a new Rite for themselves
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad:
2
27lw
Guest
I glanced at this and thought it said “Zeus use”. That would be including a little more Greek I suppose…
P
phil19034
Guest
Yes, I know. It’s based on the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It’s not older than the 1970 missal
Last edited:
One of the ironies about Vatican II is that the movement for a new rite was exclusively coming from within the clergy around the world. Lay people didn’t have the opportunity to study theology beyond their highschool education or be involved in deciding what the Church should do. Before Vatican II lay people were discouraged from having the types of discussion about the Church that we have today. There were older people who just didn’t like change but the lay Catholic didn’t go as far as to say the Church was in the wrong.
Vatican II gave lay people the opportunity to learn about and be involved in the life of the Church which seems to go over the heads of those who want to do away with it. That is ironic to me.
Vatican II gave lay people the opportunity to learn about and be involved in the life of the Church which seems to go over the heads of those who want to do away with it. That is ironic to me.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
Having gone to law school, there were phrases which would pop up, and each of them was explained by the professor as almost no one in class had any Latin education. A phrase here and a phrase there does not qualify a “a lot”. No cases were written in Latin; on occasion a Latin phrase might show up (e.g. stare decisis) and even a lawyer totally ignorant of Latin and not having a clue what “stare” translates to would know that the judge writing was referring to a matter already decided.
Some Latin phrases have continued to be used, but they harken back 100, 200 or more years and simply have been convenient.
M
mythbuster1
Guest
A lot of Catholics aren’t even aware the other Rites exist. As for the Eastern Catholics themselves, the fact that they hold to their Rites is itself an affinity for tradition, because they could easily attend a Latin Rite parish.
U
umamibella
Guest
My discussion does not include what latin a legal professional knows or does not.
Having legal eagles in the family who regularily have these types of conversation with the scientifically trained cohort of the family, I will say they would strongly disagree with you, It is more than a phrase here or there.
Perhaps the distinction is cultural, as in which country one studies their trade and comes out a barrister, solicitor, and eventually a QC , KC.
- Status