With Ancient Language, Catholic Mass Draws Young Parishioners

[ProVobis]

There is no word-for-word translation from Latin to English or from Latin to German, etc–languages aren’t that simple.

Thank you for recognizing that. There’s also a loss of the nuance, subjunctive, and gender relationships inter alia in going from Latin to English. Very important in prayer IMO. And as Bill Murray recently stated, a different vibration altogether. But that should be obvious. “Sursum corda” may be translated as “Lift up your hearts” but what first-year Latin student would translate it that way? And does anyone really know what “and with your spirit” means? Or half of the other prayers? But it’s in English; that’s all it matters. Very arrogant if anything.

Latin is a relatively stable language because of its prevalence, but certainly I wouldn’t call it immutable.

Immutable enough that if one can read Church Latin of today, he could read the Church Latin of the 3rd century, for example. That is, if he doesn’t mind the upper case and no space between words, “V” represented as “U,” and maybe “J” as “I.”

 

[AltarKnight]

Oh really?

Again, really? Please remember that the Ordinary Form IS the ORDINARY form, and is just as much, if not more so, a perfect sacrifice. You err in thinking the “older crowd” wants focus on the community. How 'bout some truthful statistics? Most of the older crowd would never want to go back to the TLM, as has been proved over and over in many, many posts in the TC forum. Thomas Casey moderated such posts as yours, often removing them, as pitting one form against the other.

Yes, really. The Second Vatican Council never called for the priest to be facing the people. It’s not pitting one form against the other, it’s the truth. A simple google search would suffice.

 

[1newcatholic]

Immutable enough that if one can read Church Latin of today, he could read the Church Latin of the 3rd century, for example. That is, if he doesn’t mind the upper case and no space between words, “V” represented as “U,” and maybe “J” as “I.”

That’s fair–it is pretty stable if not perfectly stable. I apologize if I have been too aggressive in responding.

 

[Estevao]

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?

The proof comes from the OP’s article, friend. It seems that this trend of thriving traditional parishes rests at the anecdotal level for the moment, but you get it quite often. The actual hard stats in general are pretty clear though: young people generally no longer go to mass. How to explain this? Well, I would put forth that irreverent liturgy has a part in it.

I find it funny that you should find what I’m saying to be so offensive if it’s just my personal quirks. It’d be like you getting mad at me for preferring chocolate ice cream and saying that strawberry ice-cream tastes bad.

But that’s not what it is. It’s not just my personal tastes, but a claim about something underlying the spirit of the liturgy: whether it’s God centered or man centered, whether it searches after worshiping God in spirit and in truth or it searches after evoking emotions or passions. A mass replete with the latest hot music and architecture would seem to be leaning toward the latter. But if a person can get what I’m talking about from what I’d say is an irreverent liturgy, then God bless them! I don’t try to judge what is going on with other folks who are in the pews at these kinds of liturgies, I can only say what’s happening with me.

I don’t know your parish, and I have no problem with the ordinary form as long as it is celebrated reverently. I would point out that having the masses in 20 different languages seems a lot more divisive (that favorite word of the “progressive” element of the church) than just having it in Latin. I am pretty certain that many parishes are not following the “spirit of vatican ii” (to use another favorite progressive phrase) either in their application of Sacrosanctum Concilium, nor in their adherence to Pope St. John XXIII’s apostolic constitution Veterum Sapientia: On the Promotion Of the Study of Latin

 

[1newcatholic]

I find it funny that you should find what I’m saying to be so offensive if it’s just my personal quirks. It’d be like you getting mad at me for preferring chocolate ice cream and saying that strawberry ice-cream tastes bad.

You can like whatever you like. Just don’t claim that people who don’t like what you like are doing it wrong and should be blamed for the decline of the church.

Maybe young people don’t take Catholicism seriously because too many Catholics are obnoxious and terrible examples of Christlike Christians.

Maybe young people don’t take Catholicism seriously because traditionalist Catholics keep ranting about how the olden-days Catholicism is superior to modern-days Catholicism.

Maybe there are a thousand interrelated complex reasons that the church in general is in decline, and associating the Latin Mass with said decline is a red herring distracting from major issues.

 

[ProVobis]

Yet despite Latin’s fall from linguistic supremacy, we continue to make huge advances in science, medicine, technology. Why is that, do you think?

There were fewer in my nuclear physics class than in my Latin classes, and I don’t see your point. Who said Latin was supreme ever? And are we talking about mutually exclusive subjects here? There were many scientific writings written in Latin, by the likes of Newton, Galileo, Kepler, et al. Weren’t they great advances in science, if not more so for its time and for all time, for that matter? Who will pick up an English scientific journal in 500 years from now and be able to understand it, unless it’s heavily illustrated?

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe there are a thousand interrelated complex reasons that the church in general is in decline, and associating the Latin Mass with said decline is a red herring distracting from major issues.

That may be true but you can’t blame the previous two Popes in trying to restore previous rite with its language intact and even validate the Anglican Mass in order to bring people back into church. If one has better ideas, I’d like to hear them.

 

[1newcatholic]

Who will pick up an English scientific journal in 500 years from now and be able to understand it, unless it’s heavily illustrated?

That made me smile

I don’t know what the dominant global language will be in 500 years, or if there will be a multiplicity of dominant languages associated with region, nationality, religious tradition, or something else. I can’t predict the future. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were English, or something else (Chinese?).

I’d be willing to bet that whatever the future holds, people will still have to study other languages in order to understand the literature and ideas of the past, and that not everyone or even most people will be involved in resurrecting the past for the benefit of the present.

Latin is a good language to learn, especially for Catholics who want to participate in the traditional (ancient) culture of the church. I wish I had studied it when I was younger. The public high school near our house still teaches it as part of its curriculum.

But it seems like a bad idea in general to associate knowledge or appreciation of Latin with a healthy spirituality, for reasons I don’t think I need to spell out.

 

[1newcatholic]

That may be true but you can’t blame the previous two Popes in trying to restore previous rite with its language intact and even validate the Anglican Mass in order to bring people back into church. If one has better ideas, I’d like to hear them.

I wonder if you would.

What if the ideas that are “better” for the church are disagreeable to you? What if Vatican II and the vernacular Mass are the start of a positive solution to an inevitable decline? What if the Church needs to loosen rather than tighten up? Is that an acceptable path? I can’t imagine that if you hate non-Latin Mass you would be generally open to other major changes–but that’s what solutions are: changes meant to counterbalance contemporary but problematic shifts in traditional culture.

 

[ProVobis]

I wonder if you would.

What if the ideas that are “better” for the church are disagreeable to you? What if Vatican II and the vernacular Mass are the start of a positive solution to an inevitable decline? What if the Church needs to loosen rather than tighten up? Is that an acceptable path? I can’t imagine that if you hate non-Latin Mass you would be generally open to other major changes–but that’s what solutions are: changes meant to counterbalance contemporary but problematic shifts in traditional culture.

IOW, continue the loose way we’ve been going the past 50 years and just be patient? But you’re also saying we’ll see a dramatic comeback if we only loosen up just a little bit more? Like maybe allow each parish to come up with its own liturgy if they don’t like the current myriad of options? Or maybe eliminate the Friday penance? Or maybe discontinue the Sunday and Holy Day obligation altogether? How’s that for looser? Anything else I didn’t think of?

I’m off to bed. Later.

 

[1newcatholic]

IOW, continue the loose way we’ve been going the past 50 years and just be patient? But you’re also saying we’ll see a dramatic comeback if we only loosen up just a little bit more? Like maybe allow each parish to come up with its own liturgy if they don’t like the current myriad of options? Or maybe eliminate the Friday penance? Or maybe discontinue the Sunday and Holy Day obligation altogether? How’s that for looser? Anything else I didn’t think of?

I’m off to bed. Later.

Allow me to paraphrase the conversation:

Me: Are you really willing to listen to other ideas?
You: No.

You went overboard at the very mention of continued change in a direction you dislike. I can see why you’re a big fan of the Latin Mass. Sleep well.

 

[SWolf]

I wonder if you would.

What if the ideas that are “better” for the church are disagreeable to you? What if Vatican II and the vernacular Mass are the start of a positive solution to an inevitable decline? What if the Church needs to loosen rather than tighten up? Is that an acceptable path? I can’t imagine that if you hate non-Latin Mass you would be generally open to other major changes–but that’s what solutions are: changes meant to counterbalance contemporary but problematic shifts in traditional culture.

You’d be shocked how much of many modern masses are NOT mandated by Vatican II, and how much in Vatican II that is emphasized and just ignored by most parishes, like Gregorian Chant and sacred music in general…

“116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”

“120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.”

“The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from holy scripture and from liturgical sources.”

Could you clarify what you mean by being looser?

 

[bobballen_18]

Wow! This thread blew up since last time I checked it, so I don’t really have time to reply to the detailed response otjm (or ojtm? Sorry, I forgot) gave to my last response. I did, however, read all of the responses since then.

I do want to respond to one thing otjm mentioned about my post - I mentioned how it seems most Catholics are simply not aware of nor have experienced the traditional Latin Mass, and if there were more people who WERE aware of or experienced the TLM, then more people would be at least open to it/want to attend it more often. Otjm came back with, what about the people who were kids in the 50s and 60s and were very familiar with the Latin Mass, who now certainly prefer the OF? To that, I would respond that they did not truly understand the Mass - I don’t mean this in a condescending way, so I’m sorry if it comes across that way. This leads into my other observation since reading the responses after my last one.

That observation is, it seems so many of those opposed to/not interested in the Latin Mass are very hung up on “not understanding” Latin. As I mentioned before, I can understand the fact that people can’t converse in Latin and don’t have a good hold on it. I certainly can’t converse in Latin, and even in terms of the Mass, wouldn’t be able to translate the vast majority of it into English, yet here I am, a lover of the EF Mass. What I can’t understand is that people think you HAVE to be able to converse in Latin or otherwise have a pretty good understanding of Latin in order to understand the Mass! This is where the problem lies, I believe, in many people’s attitude about the Latin Mass. I sincerely apologize if this sounds like I’m better than anyone or anything, or if I sound assuming about people, but I will continue to maintain that if you can’t understand what goes on at the Latin Mass, your problem is not necessarily with the language itself - it’s with the understanding of what the Mass is, what the role of the priest is, and what the role of the people at Mass is. I know these things can be observed correctly in the Ordinary Form Mass as well, so that’s fine. I just wish that “understanding of Latin” was not such a big deal in accepting and/or being more open to the Latin Mass, because many people, including myself, who like the EF Mass, understand little to no Latin, both in the Mass and especially all other non-church-related Latin. I mean good grief, most missals you’ll find for the Latin Mass will have the English right alongside the Latin, if you so desire. I’m sorry but I just don’t understand the hangup over the Latin itself. I would guess the real problem that people have with the EF is the form itself of the Mass. But then I suppose that is just speculation.

 

[SWolf]

IOW, continue the loose way we’ve been going the past 50 years and just be patient? But you’re also saying we’ll see a dramatic comeback if we only loosen up just a little bit more? Like maybe allow each parish to come up with its own liturgy if they don’t like the current myriad of options? Or maybe eliminate the Friday penance? Or maybe discontinue the Sunday and Holy Day obligation altogether? How’s that for looser? Anything else I didn’t think of?

I’m off to bed. Later.

My main criteria for a solid parish is the number of Seminarians coming out of the parish.

When you look around, you start to see a pattern. Parishes with many Seminarians:

• Have adoration, often 24 hours.
• Have music that is traditional, emphasizing gregorian chant.
• Often have an EF liturgy, and at least a very solid OF mass.
• Have traditional sacred art, even the more modern buildings.
• Have Confession times that are long and frequent

I will make one caveat with traditional music that Charismatic Churches also seem to get a lot of seminarians, and their music tends to be more modern. Charismatic music is leaps and bounds ahead of what came out in the 70’s and 80’s though. Credit where credit is due. The rest of the above holds for those too, however.

 

[clem456]

My main criteria for a solid parish is the number of Seminarians coming out of the parish.

When you look around, you start to see a pattern. Parishes with many Seminarians:

• Have adoration, often 24 hours.
• Have music that is traditional, emphasizing gregorian chant.
• Often have an EF liturgy, and at least a very solid OF mass.
• Have traditional sacred art, even the more modern buildings.
• Have Confession times that are long and frequent

I will make one caveat with traditional music that Charismatic Churches also seem to get a lot of seminarians, and their music tends to be more modern. Charismatic music is leaps and bounds ahead of what came out in the 70’s and 80’s though. Credit where credit is due. The rest of the above holds for those too, however.

We have

Perpetual adoration

Music that covers the whole gamut from ancient latin to Marty Haugen

No EF but a well celebrated OF. No one even knows what the letters EF mean. The older people call it “Latin Mass”. There are a few older folks, and some younger folks, who would like to have “Latin Mass”. But most of those who radically dislike the “old way”, are those who lived through the “old days”. Why is that? Language barriers are always cited as a prominent reason for not “going back”. If people who grew up immersed in the Latin Mass remember it as “mumbo-jumbo”, doesn’t that tell us something?

The parish is very vibrant. Personally I thank God for perpetual adoration as the source of the vibrancy.

 

[Mike_Dye]

I live in the Kansas City area and recently have been attending St. Philippine Duchene Parish once or so a week. They celebrate the “Extraordinary Form” or what I call the “Latin” Mass. The first time I went there it was mainly for nostalgia. I grew up in the Pre-Vatican II Church. My expectation was to see a church full of people my age and older. I really didn’t expect to see the number of young families as well as young adults that were there. I really don’t know what that means (if it means anything). Just didn’t expect it.

 

[LongingSoul]

Could you clarify what you mean by being looser?

Perhaps Pope Paul VI himself could explain that loosening up and the reasons for it in his general audience address of November 1969.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

 

[ProVobis]

But most of those who radically dislike the “old way”, are those who lived through the “old days”. Why is that?

My theory is that it’s too much work for them. They probably see simple addition of numbers on their tax return a total waste of time because they now have calculators with large numbers on them. Why take the stairs when you have elevators or escalators, that sort of thing.

Yet, there is something to be said for learning the multiplication tables or learning grammar, something most Latin students probably have a better appreciation of.

Or taking the stairs as a form of exercise, for that matter.

 

[LongingSoul]

My theory is that it’s too much work for them. They probably see simple addition of numbers on their tax return a total waste of time because they now have calculators with large numbers on them. Why take the stairs when you have elevators or escalators, that sort of thing.

Yet, there is something to be said for learning the multiplication tables or learning grammar, something most Latin students probably have a better appreciation of.

Or taking the stairs as a form of exercise, for that matter.

Pope Paul VI talks about a phenomenon that the new Mass was intended to combat …

“This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.”

He says…

“Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.”

He also identified this…

“If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: “In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (I Corinthians 14:19).”

But most importantly he says…

“It is Christ’s will, it is the breath of the Holy Spirit which calls the Church to make this change. A prophetic moment is occurring in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church. This moment is shaking the Church, arousing it, obliging it to renew the mysterious art of its prayer.”

 

[Sirach2]

But most importantly he says…

"It is Christ’s will, it is the breath of the Holy Spirit which calls the Church to make this change. A prophetic moment is occurring in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church. This moment is shaking the Church, arousing it, obliging it to renew the mysterious art of its prayer."

I fear for those who grumble, murmur, and complain against what the Church has lawfully instituted by those who had the Divine Authority to mandate this change to the OF. Throughout the Old Testament, particularly in the book of Numbers, chapters 14-20, we find example after example of the Israelites who were bitter and complained against Moses and Aaron. We know what happened to them.

Do those who continually find fault with the Church concerning Her liturgy, believe that they will escape God’s most certain correction of them? Do they realize they are speaking against the Holy Spirit’s direction? Something serious to think about!