With Ancient Language, Catholic Mass Draws Young Parishioners

[otjm]

I’m always baffled by the older people who did experience it who are truly horrified at the thought of the Latin Mass. I mean, I understand there were certain things going on that they didn’t like, but really - truly horrified at the thought of going to another Latin Mass??

I don’t know anyone who is horrified at the thought of the EF, although I suspect there are some, and I suspect they are less horrified at the thought of the EF being offered than they are at the thought of the OF being done away with. And that, I would submit, to the majority of those over 50, is that the most improtatnt element to them is not the rubrics (although I am not saying it is of no importance), but rather the loss of the vernacular. And unless people are bilingual, I suspect the same is to be said of attending Mass in another language, whether it is Polish, or Spanish, or Vietnamese, or Korean, or whatever.

I don’t know if it will ever go back to being only the EF - probably not - but I do believe that the EF is gaining a lot of popularity,

Any popularity at all as compared to none can be called a lot. Statistically, there are very few parishes out of the 17,000+ in the US which have only the EF; and statistically very few which have an EF as one of the Masses said on a weekend. The numbers appear in the 2.5% to 3% range. When 97% of the Masses aid on a weekend are the OF, there are not really a lot of EF Masses said.

 

[otjm]

Mea Culpa.

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

So there’s a mistake on both sides

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…

 

[ProVobis]

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.

It’s amazing to me how people who “are stuck in the 70’s” like to point fingers at those who “are stuck in the 50’s.” Haven’t we demonstrated that the vernacular means things have to go through translations and every now and then, because of changing vernacular, we have to retranslate to fit the Church? This becomes a very expensive process for several hundred vernaculars. It seems this money could be spent on teaching the nuances, the subjunctives, the gender relationships. etc., of the Church’s language, and their value in prayer, which some of the young are beginning to appreciate.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

That’s not fair. There are a lot of people happy with their English Masses who doubt legitimacy of ecumenism, SC, Latin, collegiality, etc. But it seems this tends to be forgotten in our desire to point fingers only at the traditionalists.

 

[otjm]

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.

I took 2 years of high school Lain; then transferred schools, and the second one was teaching by what was called the Sweet Method (after the professor). The first two years were learning vocabulary, and translating works. The Sweet Method taught it as a spoken language; and I hit the wall. The teacher would ask a question in Latin; I would translate it to English; and by the time I had an answer, the class was somewhere between 3 and 5 questions ahead of me. That didn’t last too long; I was so out of there.

However, in my second two years, I also took Homeric Greek and translated parts of the Odyssey, and in senior year, some koinae and parts of John’s Gospel.

In college (seminary) I took two years of Latin - translated, not spoken.

And all the while, Mass was still said in Latin, and I still had to use a missal with Latin on one side, and English on the other. Yeah, I could tell where we were in the Mass. But having the Mass in English was like night and day.

Sorry, but I flat out disagree with you about training. Prior to Vatican 2 and the subsequent change to the vernacular, the vast majority of people in the pews did not speak Latin. Some of them had learned, in high school, some Latin and could do some minimal translations for a while, but that soon was lost due to lack of use. And the vast majority had not taken Latin in college.

Did we memorize phrases and prayers? Yes, we could parrot them back; but we could not converse in Latin. Did we recognize parts of the Mass? Well, if you go to something every weekend and Holy Day, and hear the same thing over and over again, and you are using a missal, then you can probably parrot sections of the Mass word for word and even give back what the English is; but you most likely could not change any of it and make an intelligible sentence. And if you were given a text of a Gospel in Latin, good luck.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to attend the Mass said in Latin - whether the EF or the OF. But there are a whole lot of people - and not just English speakers - who prefer to hear the Mass said in their own language, particularly those who grew up with the Mass in all Latin.

The point of being able to “fix” the issue of not understanding Latin is the same as the point of “fixing” having a conversation with a person in another country. Unless and until you speak the language fluently, you are on the outside of the conversation. For some, that simply does not matter, as they have a translation available and use it. For them, that is fantastic (and it is obvious they have a great love of the Mass in Latin). But fixing it being easy?

Not for those who want to converse in their own language.

Another way of saying it is, when the vast majority of the world - not the US, or England, or Australia, or Canada, but the world - attends Mass in their own language, what part of that is not getting across? And why does it have to be referred to as “hating” Latin? I don’t hate it; although I might prefer Greek to Latin, I don’t hate either one of them.

 

[otjm]

It’s amazing to me how people who “are stuck in the 70’s” like to point fingers at those who “are stuck in the 50’s.” Haven’t we demonstrated that the vernacular means things have to go through translations and every now and then, because of changing vernacular, we have to retranslate to fit the Church? This becomes a very expensive process for several hundred vernaculars. It seems this money could be spent on teaching the nuances, the subjunctives, the gender relationships. etc., of the Church’s language, and their value in prayer, which some of the young are beginning to appreciate.

You are absolutely hilarious. The cost of redoing the missals is de minimis - minor to an amazing degree - compared to trying to train people in Latin. :dancing:

 

[clem456]

…
If Latin, which is immutable,
…

What do you mean exactly by “immutable”

 

[ProVobis]

And all the while, Mass was still said in Latin, and I still had to use a missal with Latin on one side, and English on the other. Yeah, I could tell where we were in the Mass. But having the Mass in English was like night and day.

I saw things a little bit differently. I saw the English as training wheels, which sooner or later, had to come off. I try NOT to look at the English, because it takes away the nuances of the Mass as it was written. Personally I think too much time is spent on translations and not immersion into the Latin language when taught in schools, which btw should be earlier than high school if they are to have any real life-lasting effect.

But you’re right, the changing of the language was a big change and probably the most noticeable one in the Mass. If there was any “rupture” which Pope Benedict warned against, it was in setting up English Masses, Spanish Masses, etc, many in the very same parishes, where one group never meets with the other.

 

[otjm]

That’s not fair. There are a lot of people happy with their English Masses who doubt legitimacy of ecumenism, SC, Latin, collegiality, etc. But it seems this tends to be forgotten in our desire to point fingers only at the traditionalists.

A lot? Compared to - what?

 

[ProVobis]

What do you mean exactly by “immutable”

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.

 

[clem456]

Can we accept that one of the (maybe THE) reason Latin was used for centuries in the Western Church is simply because it was the language of power and influence? Not that power and influence are bad things per se, but certainly the use of Latin is not by divine edict. If it were, wouldn’t the Gospels have been recorded in Latin, and wouldn’t Jesus have spoken it?

The language had it’s place in cultures that couldn’t communicate very easily with one another, when a common language of education, science, and religion was needed in a largely illiterate society. Now we have instantaneous communication. The church needs to communicate with people. The vernacular is effective and practical. Aesthetics are another thing, and are in the eye of the beholder.

Latin, like everything else human, it came, and it went. Latin is beautiful, I love to sing it, absolutely love it. If you love Latin, I love that you love Latin. But there is a reason the Church opened the door to effective communication, and it’s a good one.

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.

 

[ProVobis]

The cost of redoing the missals is de minimis - minor to an amazing degree - compared to trying to train people in Latin.

The EF has a total of about 500 unique words, many of which have English cognates. You don’t need to have them translate the entire collection of Roman authors, to gain a passable understanding of the Latin Mass.

 

[otjm]

I saw things a little bit differently. I saw the English as training wheels, which sooner or later, had to come off. I try NOT to look at the English, because it takes away the nuances of the Mass as it was written. Personally I think too much time is spent on translations and not immersion into the Latin language when taught in schools, which btw should be earlier than high school if they are to have any real life-lasting effect.

But you’re right, the changing of the language was a big change and probably the most noticeable one in the Mass. If there was any “rupture” which Pope Benedict warned against, it was in setting up English Masses, Spanish Masses, etc, many in the very same parishes, where one group never meets with the other.

The only thing I was resentful of, if anything, was my introduction to Latin as a spoken language was that I had not been introduced to it far earlier. Any resentment was not being or becoming fluent in Latin; and it appears that you are fluent in at least three languages p Polish, Latin and English. In that, you are in a minority, and perhaps you don’t truly understand how much the rest of us are not fluent and how strongly that influences our choices.

You and I disagree but I can assure you I am not “stuck in the 70’s”. I had every position open to an altar server when I was young, up to and including Master of Ceremonies at our Solemn High Masses, and I entered the seminary without any knowledge that we were going to have the Mass in the vernacular; your not exactly subtle sideswipe at me I take as a partial sideswipe as to the vocation I was considering then.

 

[ProVobis]

The vernacular is effective and practical.

I couldn’t agree with you more. But we never get exact translations because translations are more art than science. And mistranslations can easily lead to wars, as some of those who follow the Pope’s daily tweets can attest to.

Besides there is a purpose to language. It defines cultures, boundaries, and nations. And what does the Baltimore Catechism say about Latin?

Q. 566. Why does the Church use the Latin language instead of the national language of its children?

A. The Church uses the Latin language instead of the national language of its children:

    To avoid the danger of changing any part of its teaching in using different languages;
    That all its rulers may be perfectly united and understood in their communications;
    To show that the Church is not an institute of any particular nation, but the guide of all nations.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I wish Catholic schools would start teaching Latin in elementary school.

 

[otjm]

The EF has a total of about 500 unique words, many of which have English cognates. You don’t need to have them translate the entire collection of Roman authors, to gain a passable understanding of the Latin Mass.

Perhaps you don’t, but you seem to suffer from the same issue as others do who “get it” about something. It appears you are fluent, or reasonably so, in three languages - Polish, Latin and English. Just as people who are gifted at math, and can’t seem to understand how everyone else doesn’t get it, you seem to not understand that people - even people like me who have taken a fair amount of Latin - don’t get it.

 

[otjm]

I couldn’t agree with you more. But we never get exact translations because translations are more art than science. And mistranslations can easily lead to wars, as some of those who follow the Pope’s daily tweets can attest to.

Besides there is a purpose to language. It defines cultures, boundaries, and nations. And what does the Baltimore Catechism say about Latin?

And what did Vatican 2 say, well after the Baltimore Catechism was written? Oh, never mind - I think Sirach laid that out.

 

[LongingSoul]

I couldn’t agree with you more. But we never get exact translations because translations are more art than science. And mistranslations can easily lead to wars, as some of those who follow the Pope’s daily tweets can attest to.

Besides there is a purpose to language. It defines cultures, boundaries, and nations. And what does the Baltimore Catechism say about Latin?

Q. 566. Why does the Church use the Latin language instead of the national language of its children?

The dangers perceived by the writers of the Baltimore Catechism are relatively insignificant these days. With the advances in global communications and global accountability, communities are no longer isolated and subjected to only their local translations. There is no longer that opportunity for insular worldviews to control or influence people. That applies across the gammit of life experiences… not just Catholic teaching.

 

[ProVobis]

…your not exactly subtle sideswipe at me I take as a partial sideswipe as to the vocation I was considering then.

Then your take is incorrect because I respect all priests, whether they say the Maronite, the EF, or the English OF. I admit it’s tough to do confession with Spanish priests, but many Anglophones have managed.

 

[ProVobis]

Latin, like everything else human, it came, and it went.

If you’ve read any of the books I suggested earlier, you would know that Latin has had its ups and downs for the last 2000 years. It’s never been the vernacular, mostly used by scholars, but that’s why it’s managed to be so pristine and unchanging. If it were in constant use, like most of the modern languages, it would be a different story.

Yes, the world of communication is different. But the internet and modern technology have, if anything, improved the survival of Latin. And as Luke Henderson noted in his video, there are still vasts amounts of things written in Latin which have never been translated into any other language. If one is to use the argument that teaching it has no value anymore, then neither is teaching the multiplication tables or geography or history of any type. After all, we have computers to do all that for us and it all must be true.