With Ancient Language, Catholic Mass Draws Young Parishioners

[JimR-OCDS]

Indeed. However at the time she lived, there was no Ordinary Form of the Mass.

Re the blue, it would be a good idea to read this link. [Has this section of CAF now become the new TC Forum?]
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7000410&postcount=1

I bet St Theresa the Little Flower would’ve loved to hear Mass celebrated in her native tongue, French.

Heck, St Teresa of Avila, would’ve love to have English translation of the Bible, but anything other than Latin translations were prohibited during her time.

She was unable to read Scripture as a result of not understanding classical Latin.

I bet she too would’ve liked to hear the Mass celebrated in Spanish.

In Carmel

Jim

 

[LongingSoul]

Not entirely.

youtube.com/watch?v=kPE4EqMm2cg

You can throw Kepler into the mix of those who wrote papers in Latin.

But you get the point don’t you? Latin is not an integral part of higher education now because it isn’t necessary in the way it used to be.

 

[ProVobis]

The Church decided after the Vatican Council to implement a new form of the Mass to be universal and available in the vernacular. It was never meant to be an either/or option alongside the Latin Mass.

Who told you this?

Was this because you read (in English) that it was “frequently” of advantage to use the vernacular? Well, that’s a biased translation of the Latin if not a complete mistranslation of the intent. The Latin is haud raro, meaning “not rarely,” which hardly means vernacular everywhere all the time. Of course the ICEL, who had lobbied for the all-vernacular, would ignore Veterum Sapientia as well as the SC’s command (jussive subjunctive) to preserve the Latin in the liturgy.

But more to your point, the new form of the Mass may be said entirely in Latin and it was never the intent to get rid of Latin altogether.

OTOH, if you mean the Missal of 62, you’re right about the “alongside” part. That wasn’t until Summorum Pontificum.

 

[ProVobis]

But you get the point don’t you? Latin is not an integral part of higher education now because it isn’t necessary in the way it used to be.

In the long range scheme of things, your point is too narrow. If Latin, which is immutable, doesn’t survive, how can any of the existing modern languages whose meanings change all the time? Besides, as Luke said in the video, there are vast majority of works written in Latin that still haven’t been translated into any other language. And you can throw many of the Vatican documents into that mix. Even some of the old translations into English should be revisited from time to time it seems. So I would disagree with you that it isn’t necessary the way it used to be. Maybe more necessary, if anything, especially now with the internet.

No disrespect intended but rather than arguing this further, I’ll let the authors of the following books speak for me.

Janson, “A Natural History of Latin”

Leonhardt, “Story of a World Language - Latin”

Solodow, “Latin Alive: The Survival of Latin in English and the Romance Languages”

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[ProVobis]

I bet she too would’ve liked to hear the Mass celebrated in Spanish.

I like the Spanish Mass.

In fact, all the Spanish I know comes from trying to follow the Mass in Spanish. As for the sermon I just go with the tone. Works spiritually for me.

 

[SWolf]

I bet St Theresa the Little Flower would’ve loved to hear Mass celebrated in her native tongue, French.

Heck, St Teresa of Avila, would’ve love to have English translation of the Bible, but anything other than Latin translations were prohibited during her time.

She was unable to read Scripture as a result of not understanding classical Latin.

I bet she too would’ve liked to hear the Mass celebrated in Spanish.

In Carmel

Jim

St Teresa was Spanish.

The Spanish Reina-Valera translation was written in her lifetime.

 

[MacBP]

I find the “Mass wars” to be sad. One of the beautiful things about the Catholic Church is that it is large enough and diverse enough to support a variety of traditions. That’s why we can have the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rite working side by side. I’ve never been drawn to the Eastern Rite, but I’m happy that it exists for those who find it fruitful.

Similarly, with the ordinary and extraordinary form, I’ve never been drawn to the extraordinary form but I’m happy that it exists for those who benefit from it. I’m sure that those enjoy the extraordinary form can appreciate the fact that some of us draw great value from the ordinary form. There’s really no reason to fight! We all want the same thing.

 

[bobballen_18]

Most people quickly adopted the new form because it was obvious that a generation of young Catholics were growing to regard the Latin as mumbo jumbo. My mother (an old teacher) was still teaching Latin roots in relation to modern English but there was no appetite in education for formal Latin anymore.

All right, I understand that not everyone knows Latin. Heck, I don’t know Latin that well either, although I do have a bit of a Latin vocabulary. I just want to say, though, that lack of the understanding of Latin should have little to nothing to do with whether or not one likes the Latin Mass. If one does not understand what goes on in the Latin Mass, it is one of two things: 1) the person has not educated himself well enough on what it is, or 2) the church has not educated her members well enough. At the time we made the switch to the OF, it was probably a little bit of both. And it’s probably still a little bit of both in some ways. I feel that of all the reasons people do not like the Latin Mass, I feel that the dislike of Latin/not understanding every little word should be one of the easier things to fix.

 

[adawgj]

I understand a priestly formation requires a period of 8-11 years so it’s probably better to become a diocesan priest, probably the safest route in the long run. But that’s my opinion. I do respect all priests, though, no matter which course they pursue.

I would be a diocesan priest if it was my calling, however it is not.

 

[ProVobis]

I find the “Mass wars” to be sad. One of the beautiful things about the Catholic Church is that it is large enough and diverse enough to support a variety of traditions. That’s why we can have the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rite working side by side. I’ve never been drawn to the Eastern Rite, but I’m happy that it exists for those who find it fruitful.

Indeed. My personal attachment, besides the Latin Mass in either form, is perhaps the Maronite, also an ancient liturgy which uses Aramaic in its consecration and Arabic in a lot of the chants. I don’t know anyone who’s attended it and walked out disappointed.

 

[SWolf]

I find the “Mass wars” to be sad. One of the beautiful things about the Catholic Church is that it is large enough and diverse enough to support a variety of traditions. That’s why we can have the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rite working side by side. I’ve never been drawn to the Eastern Rite, but I’m happy that it exists for those who find it fruitful.

Similarly, with the ordinary and extraordinary form, I’ve never been drawn to the extraordinary form but I’m happy that it exists for those who benefit from it. I’m sure that those enjoy the extraordinary form can appreciate the fact that some of us draw great value from the ordinary form. There’s really no reason to fight! We all want the same thing.

Indeed, there are a multitude of different valid rites, beyond even Ordinary and Extraordinary forms.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Preferring one over another should not be controversial.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

St Teresa was Spanish.

The Spanish Reina-Valera translation was written in her lifetime.

Yeah, I meant, “Spanish.”

Jim

 

[SWolf]

Yeah, I meant, “Spanish.”

Jim

Mea Culpa.

It was the translations by Ambrosio de Montesino I was thinking of.

So there’s a mistake on both sides

 

[tower_of_babel]

these old languages are powerful, im learning hebrew at the moment, and it really strengthens my faith. (even if its only relevant to OT) i would like to learn greek and latin in the future.

 

[otjm]

How is this better achieved with the vernacular which splits parishes into Spanish, English, Polish, Vietnamese where one group never meets the other and in many instances, are even hostile to them? And that Eucharist argument might not be as deep as you think as half of the the congregation doesn’t even receive at the non-English Masses I’ve attended.

The same thing that, when the Poles came to the US, the Spanish, the Germans, the Italians, and other groups did, that is, they migrated to their own parishes and didn’t go to other parishes when they went to Mass. Your myopia is showing. They separated before, and they separate again. The obvious issue is that the are most comfortable with others who speak the same language, and share a common heritage.

What is the purpose of the vernacular? It is the ability to pray in one’s own tongue, rather than to parrot words which one barely recognizes, and which one cannot use in conversation. The alternative, of course, was to provide a translation along side the Latin, so that one could actually pray along with the priest, if one could figure out where the priest was exactly.

 

[otjm]

Perhaps the Genesis story of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11) could demonstrate certain dangers in unity of purpose. When there was only one language on earth, the people conspired to build a tower that would reach to heaven and make a name for themselves. Through their shared language they became a powerful force of pride. They were actually building a monument to themselves with man made materials like brick and tar rather than conforming to building with God ordained materials like stone and mortar. So God confused their language so they had to get back to the basics.

And so it is with Mass in the vernacular. Without the unity of language there remains only one unifying aspect. The Body of Christ.

There may have been a unity of language when the Mass was solely said in Latin, but the word “unity” and the word 'unify" are not identical.

Having lived through the change in the form of the Mass (I was an altar boy in the 1950’s and onward), I always find it amusing that people who love the EF talk about the “massive” numbers of people who were so upset with the changes.

Little or nothing is said about the “massive” numbers of people who were overjoyed when the vernacular was instituted, and little is heard from those people. In part, that is because the OF is the vast majority of the Masses which are said, and they have no reason to comment about how much they like the OF - their actions speak for themsleves. And in part, it is because the only people speaking up are those who don’t like it - who are in a very small minority.

Last I checked, about 2 & 1/2% of the Masses said on a weekend were in the OF, or less. That has undoubtedly moved up a bit, but only a small bit.

I don’t doubt the truth of the OP, that the priest was noting that the youth are the larger group attending the EF where he says that Mass. On the other hand, the people over 50 are the primary group who are attending Mass weekly the most faithfully and they are attending the OF. If they were raised on the EF, then the elephant in the room is why are they not the largest group attending the EF? That never gets addressed.

 

[otjm]

I have, however I am leaning more toward a Jesuit calling than an FSSP one.

Best wishes. I knew some absolutely awesome Jesuits when I was in high school (sadly, I only had two years with them), and had a great uncle who was a missionary in China before Mao rolled over the place. Our most recent pastor was a Jesuit, and is still very loved by our parish.

 

[otjm]

The majority don’t go to Mass at all.

That’s why they have to resort to stuff like Flash mobs, Polka Masses, etc. in order to draw people back to the Church. The Ordinary Form has flourished in areas like Africa and Asia, though I understand Africa uses a lot more Gregorian chant.

Flash mobs have nothing to do with the Mass, and you know it.

And Polka Masses are not being used “to draw people back to the Church”. Programs like Returning Catholics are.

And according to CARA, more than half of those who are Catholic and over 50 attend Mass on a weekly basis; it is the younger generations who fall off.

And before you go off about bad Masses chasing the youth away, you will have to explain why the mainline churches and the evangelical and fundamental churches are all suffering what the Catholic Church is suffering - which is the tremendous loss of those under 50. Since they did not have liturgy in Latin (with the exception of high Lutheran and possibly high Anglican), you cannot blame it on the vernacular, or the OF.

 

[LongingSoul]

On the other hand, the people over 50 are the primary group who are attending Mass weekly the most faithfully and they are attending the OF. If they were raised on the EF, then the elephant in the room is why are they not the largest group attending the EF? That never gets addressed.

One of the observations I have and its only since having access to the internet about 12 years ago that I’ve seen it for myself is… the emergence of the ‘tradionalist’ in its modern form. Back in the ‘old days’ there used to be those that were sticklers for traditional Catholic expression and symbolism and lamented changes… but they never criticised the Church or the Pope either overtly or subversively. They always had that base line assent and sense of awe regarding the Papal powers of Christ with us and her authority to lead.

Scanning the net it is evident that a lot of those who want the EF also doubt the legitimacy of Vatican II and the legitimacy of the subsequent Popes. That’s what really turns me off the whole argument. It seems more like an expression of something more than a love of the traditional.

 

[otjm]

Yeah, the majority may be “happy with the Ordinary Form” but how many are fully informed about and exposed to the Extraordinary Form.

The OF came to us in 1969. Several years ago, CARA’s polling showed that the greatest percentage of those attending Mass weekly were those over the age of 50. Move that up to 55, and you have people who were 10 when the Mass changed. So you have an age range of 55 to 85, or 30 years of experience of the OF to a greater degree as they get older, and this is the age range where more than 50% are attending Mass every Sunday. They are not the primary ones attending the EF where it is offered, according to most reports which show up in these threads. They have the experience, and they vote for the OF.

Just some thoughts here…not trying to pit one form against the other - but if the forms are so “equal” then why are so many Catholics just not even aware of the EF? I don’t think it is pitting one form against the other to say that many, if not most, Catholics these days are deprived of some of their heritage through the OF being the “norm”. Rather, it is just stating a fact - many/most Catholics today, especially those born after Vatican II, are simply not aware of the Latin Mass.

Pope Benedict, in his letter accompanying SP, said that he thought that the EF would remain extraordinary; that is, with minority attendance. Why is growth so slow? I would suggest that those who love the EF cannot understand why others are not equally attracted to it, and presume that it is a lack of understanding of it. As far as I know, no one, including those who attend the EF, are keeping any statistics as to who actually attends every Sunday. By that, I mean, how many actually make that Mass their Mass for the week; how many attend occasionally, how many attend once or twice and don’t return; and how many start for a period of time and then stop. Additionally, it is hard to find any statistics as to how many are attending any given Mass, and out of that group, how many are over the age of 18 - meaning, how many are making the decision on their own to attend. What we are left with is apocryphal reporting.

but I would say it is more of a “deprivation” in terms of the Mass, since the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our faith. I know that there were some positives gained through the introduction of the Ordinary Form, but consider the possibility that other positives were lost with the near-abandonment of the Extraordinary Form.

One of the largest objections to the OF was the loss of the sense of the sacred. By 1989, we were one generation past the beginning of the OF; by 2009 we were two generations away. The complaint still is made; but the appearance of the complaint too often appears to relate to issues back in the 70’s and the 80’s, and fails to take into account what are called the “John Paul 2 priests”. And it has been widely noted that those priests have far different issues than the priest who are 20, 30 or more years older than them. In other words, things have changed, but the same tired old objections are dragged out, in part because those making the objections really have an issue more deeply entrenched, and are either not willing or not able to identify change which does not comport with their perceptions.

But I think it is absurd to think that they are equal in every single way, and I think that is true whether you prefer the OF or the EF. And again, I don’t think that qualifies as “pitting one form against the other.”

The problem, I would submit, is the use of the term “equal”. if one thing is different from another, what does equal have to do with comparing the two?

The OF clearly brings out a fact, which sometimes seems to be to the dismay of those who prefer the EF, that the Mass is both sacrifice and sacred meal. There are those who seem to either deny that this is part of the Mass, or in the alternative seem to say that any emphasis on Mass as sacred meal either eliminates or minimizes sacrifice. My observation to some of those discussions are that if the objector could be transported back to the Upper Room as an observer, or transported back in time to shortly after the Ascension, they would criticize Christ and the Apostles, and/or be scandalized by them. Perhaps I am a bit strong, but some of the discussions I have either observed or been a part of certainly give that appearance.

Have there been sloppy Masses? I experienced them both before and after the introduction of the OF. That has far more to do with the priest celebrant than it does to the form.

Is the lack of emphasis, or de-emphasis, or whatever you may wish to call it, an error in the EF, or wrong? Clearly, the Church intended to bring more emphasis to it, and that didn’t start after Vatican 2. Beyond that, one is getting into value judgments which may be more personal than factual.

Some people are very emotionally attracted to the EF; others to the OF. Does that make the attraction wrong in one or the other? Perhaps, if it is for the wrong reason; but both provide grace to those attending, and I have yet to see the Church indicate that more grace is provided by one over the other.

Anyway, more specifically on topic, I do think that once Catholics are aware of the EF - that is, have experienced it and really understand it and know what it is like, they can recognize the treasures that exist there.

Again, then why are thos who experienced the EF as adults in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s not attending?