With Ancient Language, Catholic Mass Draws Young Parishioners

[SWolf]

Ah, but perhaps the better question was, how available was it? Europe had moveable type printing in about 1450 and she lived 1515 - 1582, but that does not mean that there was an addition or 5 available for purcahse at the local street corner coffee and book shop…

The Bible was not very available, and very expensive, like every book in that time.

 

[SWolf]

I have two 20something kids, and when the world is screaming at them in plain language to fornicate and consume alcohol, I want the Church’s message to be heard in plain and simple language.

You’ll hear this the most in Churches that have a Latin mass, in my experience they tend to be the most outspoken about controversial issues and aren’t as worried about being “with the times”.

Sermons are always in the vernacular.

 

[Estevao]

I don’t know what it is, but recently I’ve just had it up to here with irreverent masses, stripped down liturgy and churches, guitar and drum masses, and the forgettable homilies that don’t preach to inspire zeal. It came from going to daily mass at a certain parish where the church architecture was just as wreckovated and modernist as could be, the homilies were always feel good, and the liturgy was as lax as it could be without invoking the ire of our solid bishop. The feeling just grew day by day, and I had to stop going there.

Now it causes me distress to go to an irreverent mass full of hippy guitar and drum music, or to eucharistic adoration that’s like an emotional hootenanny with a rock band right next to Jesus on the altar singing the latest protestant christian top 20 hit.

I’d say I’m fine with both forms of the mass we have, but I’d have to add the caveat that I’m fine with the extradordinary form and the ordinary form celebrated in a reverent and dignified way.

I can’t say the commonly laxly celebrated ordinary form is the sole cause of why young people don’t go to church anymore, but it’s definitely a part of why young people don’t take catholicism seriously.

#Just20somethingCatholicThings

 

[SWolf]

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.

Trust me, I’ve seen many a priest in the Ordinary form take subtle swipes at Benedict during Mass.

I could easily say many have animosity towards the EF because it relates to traditional Catholic teaching. Many would prefer congregations believed the Church began in the 1960s, and the EF forgotten, as it would be much easier to push radical changes in teachings.

We could go along that path, but I don’t think it’s useful.

 

[LongingSoul]

Trust me, I’ve seen many a priest in the Ordinary form take subtle swipes at Benedict during Mass.

I could easily say many have animosity towards the EF because it relates to traditional Catholic teaching. Many would prefer congregations believed the Church began in the 1960s, and the EF forgotten, as it would be much easier to push radical changes in teachings.

We could go along that path, but I don’t think it’s useful.

But if you scan the threads regarding OF or EF they exclusively arise from traditionalists claiming the superiority of the Tridentine Mass and that puts everyone off side. For example the article that inspired this thread reports things like…

“When you go to the older Mass, you have the Latin, you have the incense, you have the priest facing the crucifix and the focus is completely off you,” he says. “All the attention is turned towards the sacrifice.”

and…

“You come into it and you’re kind of lifted to another world, which is really what’s supposed to happen on a Sunday when you’re praying,” says Tavakoli. “In really a truly beautiful way and not just kitschy or trendy and what is going on with the times, but what is timeless.”

Personally I think that the new Mass puts me closer to the experience of 1st AD Jerusalem, the Last Supper in the upper room with the Lord, the face of the suffering Christ looking down from the Cross and our communion with the sacrifice. I don’t feel more close to that through too much fanciness and ritual. Maybe being a born and bred outback country person has something to do with that?

But I certainly don’t feel that my lifetime experience of Mass is as shallow as being “kitschy or trendy and what is going on with the times”.

The Church in her wisdom deems the new form as good. Me too.

 

[ProVobis]

Personally I think that the new Mass puts me closer to the experience of 1st AD Jerusalem,

I guess it depends on whom you talk to. Some have evidence that the Romans and Greeks, being very religious, were still into heavy pagan worship in the early centuries, and this worship became Christianized slowly until Christianity completely subsumed the Roman Empire. It might have been as you imagine, though, and in the catacombs without too much space; I’m just saying we don’t know for sure that that was it. St. Paul found a “significant” number of Christians when he came to Rome, according to a PBS documentary. The Bible wasn’t completed until the 2nd century so readings were probably still of the Old Testament.

 

[SWolf]

But if you scan the threads regarding OF or EF they exclusively arise from traditionalists claiming the superiority of the Tridentine Mass and that puts everyone off side.

I see a thread where people state they love the Tridentine Mass. Shouting the praises of the EF doesn’t automatically mean a denigration of the OF, or any of the many other rites that Catholic Church recognizes. Think of it from this perspective. Imagine if had to drive 45 minutes to go to an Ordinary Form Mass, and everywhere else was EF. It would probably frustrate you tremendously.

If people are willing to make that big of a sacrifice for what is spiritually nourishing to them, they are going to espouse it passionately. Add to that the hundreds of years of Tradition associated with it and you have quite a bit of zeal.

Honestly, if every parish had an OF and EF mass, I doubt these debates would come up nearly as often. The EF group feels they were neglected, for good reason. It wasn’t until Benedict that any Pope made a strong stand towards the Tridentine.

 

[LongingSoul]

I see a thread where people state they love the Tridentine Mass. Shouting the praises of the EF doesn’t automatically mean a denigration of the OF, or any of the many other rites that Catholic Church recognizes. Think of it from this perspective. Imagine if had to drive 45 minutes to go to an Ordinary Form Mass, and everywhere else was EF. It would probably frustrate you tremendously.

If people are willing to make that big of a sacrifice for what is spiritually nourishing to them, they are going to espouse it passionately. Add to that the hundreds of years of Tradition associated with it and you have quite a bit of zeal.

Honestly, if every parish had an OF and EF mass, I doubt these debates would come up nearly as often. The EF group feels they were neglected, for good reason. It wasn’t until Benedict that any Pope made a strong stand towards the Tridentine.

I can honestly say that I would not be frustrated if the only Mass available to me one Sunday was the EF. Mass is mass whether it is the incense, bells and high altar or homemade flatbread and a dining room table. (I’ve been to many home masses because my uncle is a Priest and there have been many impromptu occasions.)

The perspective that I come from is reflected in todays (Tuesday) Gospel in many ways.

Luke 21:5-11

While some people were speaking about
how the temple was adorned with costly stones and votive offerings,
Jesus said, “All that you see here–
the days will come when there will not be left
a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down.”

Then they asked him,
“Teacher, when will this happen?
And what sign will there be when all these things are about to happen?”
He answered,
“See that you not be deceived,
for many will come in my name, saying,
‘I am he,’ and ‘The time has come.’
Do not follow them!
When you hear of wars and insurrections,
do not be terrified; for such things must happen first,
but it will not immediately be the end.”
Then he said to them,
“Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
There will be powerful earthquakes, famines, and plagues
from place to place;
and awesome sights and mighty signs will come from the sky.”

The form of the Mass is a human creation. When Christ comes again on the last day… all that will be worthless rubble. Our souls are edified by more ‘spiritually nourishing’ Eucharistic Truths than the form of the Mass.

 

[1newcatholic]

minimal change of meaning.

For example, Cicero or St Augustine or any other one of the early Church fathers could come back today and understand perfectly the Vatican II documents or even the new Mass in Latin.

Contrast that with Shakespeare who would I’m sure be more than irritated with 2014 English and the way it’s used. He’d probably have to relearn the entire language, just as I did when moving from the U.K. to the U.S., and more.

I wonder why there are different Latin courses offered by the seminaries I go to–Patristic Latin, Ancient Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin… Could it possibly be because Latin is NOT immutable? (Answer: Yes).

 

[1newcatholic]

I don’t know what it is, but recently I’ve just had it up to here with irreverent masses, stripped down liturgy and churches, guitar and drum masses, and the forgettable homilies that don’t preach to inspire zeal. It came from going to daily mass at a certain parish where the church architecture was just as wreckovated and modernist as could be, the homilies were always feel good, and the liturgy was as lax as it could be without invoking the ire of our solid bishop. The feeling just grew day by day, and I had to stop going there.

Now it causes me distress to go to an irreverent mass full of hippy guitar and drum music, or to eucharistic adoration that’s like an emotional hootenanny with a rock band right next to Jesus on the altar singing the latest protestant christian top 20 hit.

I’d say I’m fine with both forms of the mass we have, but I’d have to add the caveat that I’m fine with the extradordinary form and the ordinary form celebrated in a reverent and dignified way.

#Just20somethingCatholicThings

I can’t say the commonly laxly celebrated ordinary form is the sole cause of why young people don’t go to church anymore, but it’s definitely a part of why young people don’t take catholicism seriously.

Young people don’t take Catholicism seriously because Mass isn’t offered in a style that is pleasing to you?

#SelfAbsorbedCatholicThings

 

[Estevao]

Young people don’t take Catholicism seriously because Mass isn’t offered in a style that is pleasing to you?

#SelfAbsorbedCatholicThings

Attacking the messenger won’t change the numbers. Young people by and large do not take Catholicism seriously, except for traditional parishes which have reverent liturgies and preach with zeal.

 

[1newcatholic]

Attacking the messenger won’t change the numbers. Young people by and large do not take Catholicism seriously, except for traditional parishes which have reverent liturgies and preach with zeal.

I’m not attacking the messenger–I’m rejecting your premise that conducting Mass in a language most people can’t understand or speak will somehow cause a parish to be flooded with parishioners.

Perhaps it is marginally true, in that people desperate for the old traditions will show up when things are finally done the way they want. But that suggests that they are spiritually weak and self-absorbed, and can only grow spiritually when their demands are met. Children throw tantrums until they get what they want. That doesn’t mean their demands were reasonable.

My two cents on the Latin Mass: a parish with a high volume of traditionalists should offer a traditional Mass on a semi-regular basis, but a church’s energy should be directed to the actual needs of its members, not the quirks of Latin buffs. And it’s also true that some people are enthralled with the “mysteriousness” of a church service they can’t understand. It makes them feel like something magical is happening. Me personally, I would prefer to feel like Mass isn’t all smoke and mirrors designed to entertain people by overwhelming them with things they can’t possibly understand in order to make them feel like something important is happening.

 

[ProVobis]

I wonder why there are different Latin courses offered by the seminaries I go to–Patristic Latin, Ancient Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin… Could it possibly be because Latin is NOT immutable?

I think you are confused. The meanings of Latin words doesn’t change. Sure, you can make a case that “oratio” wasn’t always “prayer” and “gratia” wasn’t always “grace,” or even that the Church added words in Ecclesiastical Latin but the changes weren’t anywhere like English words “gay,” for example. Today’s kids know only one meaning of “gay” and they must be confused when they hear those old songs.

It doesn’t take a Latinist to pick up a 750 AD Missal and recognize the “Te igitur clementissime Pater…” as the same prayer as used in the Roman Canon and EP1 today. And means the same thing today. Or has the Western world completely lost its ties with the past?

 

[Estevao]

I’m not attacking the messenger–I’m rejecting your premise that conducting Mass in a language most people can’t understand or speak will somehow cause a parish to be flooded with parishioners.

My position comes from personal experience and looking at the numbers. Committed Catholics under the age of 35 are very rare, or statistically non-existent, whereas there is actual life of this demographic at traditional parishes.

Perhaps it is marginally true, in that people desperate for the old traditions will show up when things are finally done the way they want. But that suggests that they are spiritually weak and self-absorbed, and can only grow spiritually when their demands are met. Children throw tantrums until they get what they want. That doesn’t mean their demands were reasonable.

My two cents on the Latin Mass: a parish with a high volume of traditionalists should offer a traditional Mass on a semi-regular basis, but a church’s energy should be directed to the actual needs of its members, not the quirks of Latin buffs. And it’s also true that some people are enthralled with the “mysteriousness” of a church service they can’t understand. It makes them feel like something magical is happening. Me personally, I would prefer to feel like Mass isn’t all smoke and mirrors designed to entertain people by overwhelming them with things they can’t possibly understand in order to make them feel like something important is happening.

I think the same points about spiritual immaturity and trying to entertain people applies to trying to attract the young people to church with flashy accoutrements like drum and guitar masses or eucharistic adoration accompanied by the latest Christian rock hits.

I don’t really have any problems with the ordinary form in itself, I’ve been going to it for almost 3 years now regularly since leaving atheism. But I was fortunate in that the first parish I visited was a place where the mass was celebrated reverently, focusing on God, the sacrifice of Calvary, zealous preaching, and it wasn’t a “wreckovated” parish but still has some history in its architecture that dated before the 1980s.

However as a former atheist, I’m still able to look into parish life from the outside, and I fail to understand this opprobrium that is leveled at the extraordinary form. I’ve heard anti-Catholic Calvinists talk about the mass more reverently than some people talk about the extraordinary form.

 

[ProVobis]

…but a church’s energy should be directed to the actual needs of its members, not the quirks of Latin buffs.

Right. Listen to those educators of the last century who drove the intelligence levels of the U.S. and other countries to all-time lows. How much further can reading, math, and science scores (and you can throw in catechism in there) drop before someone realizes there is a “need” to start educating its members? News flash: English isn’t doing too well either. The brightest kids seem to think grammar is the least important of skills; as long as it passes the spell-checker, it must be okay.

As the mayor of London recently stated, it was “absurd” that Latin was dropped in schools. And he wasn’t even talking about the Mass.

 

[1newcatholic]

I think you are confused. The meanings of Latin words doesn’t change. Sure, you can make a case that “oratio” wasn’t always “prayer” and “gratia” wasn’t always “grace,” or even that the Church added words in Ecclesiastical Latin but the changes weren’t anywhere like English words “gay,” for example. Today’s kids know only one meaning of “gay” and they must be confused when they hear those old songs.

It doesn’t take a Latinist to pick up a 750 AD Missal and recognize the “Te igitur clementissime Pater…” as the same prayer as used in the Roman Canon and EP1 today. And means the same thing today. Or has the Western world completely lost its ties with the past?

I have a strong feeling that you are overstating the stability of Latin, although Latin is not my forte (my training is in Hebrew and Greek). Because Latin has been the language of the church, its mutability has been slower than languages that have no official textual anchor, but it certainly did not stop evolving over time. There have been definite changes in grammar, spelling, and meaning in ancient and modern Latin. There is no word-for-word translation from Latin to English or from Latin to German, etc–languages aren’t that simple. Multiple meanings are possible in any language, and Latin is no exception.

Latin is a relatively stable language because of its prevalence, but certainly I wouldn’t call it immutable. Dictionaries are a modern invention, and are responsible for the relative “freezing” of languages (although definitions change, new words are added, old words are deleted all the time) in our modern times. Before there were dictionaries, different authors could mean different things by the same word, or could spell the same words differently.

 

[1newcatholic]

Right. Listen to those educators of the last century who drove the intelligence levels of the U.S. and other countries to all-time lows. How much further can reading, math, and science scores (and you can throw in catechism in there) drop before someone realizes there is a “need” to start educating its members? News flash: English isn’t doing too well either. The brightest kids seem to think grammar is the least important of skills; as long as it passes the spell-checker, it must be okay.

As the mayor of London recently stated, it was “absurd” that Latin was dropped in schools. And he wasn’t even talking about the Mass.

Education is at its all-time highest all around the world. You sound upset that your favorite pet subject isn’t as primary a subject as it used to be. Yet despite Latin’s fall from linguistic supremacy, we continue to make huge advances in science, medicine, technology. Why is that, do you think?

You can scoff at people you deem intellectually inferior if you like, since they can’t replicate dead languages to your satisfaction, but since I am the child of educators, I don’t share your general disdain for the educated opinions of educated people.

More people are reading and writing now than they ever have in the history of the world. People might break the traditional ‘rules’ of communication (grammar, etc) with great frequency, but more people are actually talking to each other than ever before. You can call it the dumbing down of the world if you like, but I see it as the leveling of the playing field–speciality knowledge (like Latin) is reserved for people who need it (like canon lawyers) while generalized knowledge (like math, logic, reasoning, history) is more widely disseminated among the masses.

ANYONE who WANTS to can study Latin. Making it mandatory? There are better ways to spend our time in the classroom.

 

[phil19034]

If you watch the video of the young girl posted above, what is so striking is this intense focus on her feelings about the Latin Mass. I, me, my, mine feature in a way the Evangelicals like to talk. Her attitude towards the ordinary form is insulting but I don’t suspect she realises that. Mass is not about the hour in Church on Sunday. It is about the Priest sending us forth from the Eucharistic table to go out into the world in greater charity and neighbourliness. The Mass as we now know it was meant to instill a greater sense of us in the world as the ‘Church’ rather than an isolated building and fancy vestments and ‘the event of the Mass’ for the single hour on a Sunday.

Just as a note: in fairness to her, she is actually a Byzantine Catholic, not a Roman Rite Catholic. Therefore, it’s natural for her to be accustom to the Ritual of the Latin Mass.

But we must realize, that even the Ordinary form should still have much love for Liturgy and Ritual placed in it as well. The Ordinary Form can be celebrated with much beauty in Latin, with readings and homily in vernacular.

I think Parishes should have more Latin Mass (even in Ordinary form). They don’t have to do every mass in Latin, but having at least one that is mostly Latin and with Chant would be welcome by many.

 

[phil19034]

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.

You make a good point. But I do think there is a place for Latin. Especially on Holy Days. In Parishes with multi language masses, instead of trying to have enough times for everyone or having bilingual masses where one reading in English and the 2nd reading in Spanish (or what ever language) and then some hymns in one language and then hymns in another, Latin would be perfect in these situations.

Unify the parish during Holy Days with Latin instead of bi-lingual services. All Catholics should know some basic Latin hymns (not necessary by heart, but should be able to recognize them)

 

[1newcatholic]

My position comes from personal experience and looking at the numbers. Committed Catholics under the age of 35 are very rare, or statistically non-existent, whereas there is actual life of this demographic at traditional parishes.

While I would not dream of challenging your personal experience, will you provide me with the statistical proof that Latin Masses = a more thriving church? My parish is filled with young and old people, and conducts its Masses in English, Spanish, Tagalog and more. No Latin. Why do you say that my church and the congregation is inferior to other churches that have the Latin Mass? Do you not understand how insulting that is to every church that does it differently than your private personal preference?