With Ancient Language, Catholic Mass Draws Young Parishioners

[clem456]

Love the table arrangement. Happy Thanksgiving to you also.

 

[ProVobis]

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

Maybe but later…

In April 1974 Pope Paul VI sent to every bishop in the world a booklet of some of the simplest selections of Gregorian Chant, much of it drawn from the Graduale Romanum. This booklet, called Jubilate Deo, was intended as a “minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant”. It is, in other words, an official Latin “core repertoire” for the Roman Rite. It was prepared, the Pope said, in order “to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living tradition of the past. Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse Gregorian chant the place which is due to it” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Pope Paul VI gave permission for the selections in Jubilate Deo to be freely reprinted. The booklet was accompanied by a letter in which the Holy Father made this request of the bishops:

“Would you therefore, in collaboration with the competent diocesan and national agencies for the liturgy, sacred music and catechetics, decide on the best ways of teaching the faithful the Latin chants of Jubilate Deo and of having them sing them…. You will thus be performing a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Jubilate Deo contains simple chant settings in Latin of the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation, Agnus Dei. It also provides musical settings for the dialogues between priest and people, such as before the Preface, and the Ite Missa est, the response to the Prayer of the Faithful, and others.

An, expanded edition of Jubilate Deo was later issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1987.

Unfortunately, the faithful were not taught these chants, and it is rare to hear any music from this collection sung in parishes today.

• See more at: adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html#sthash.91W0V9h1.dpuf

 

[SWolf]

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.

Perpetual Adoration is such a blessing. I’m glad you understand how blessed you are to have a parish like that.

 

[1newcatholic]

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

Thank you for providing this link. A very enjoyable and educational read.

Excerpt:

*8. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.

1. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?
2. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.
3. 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.
4. 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).*

 

[ProVobis]

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).

[/INDENT]

St. Paul also says in 1 Cor 1:

10 Obsecro autem vos fratres per nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi: ut idipsum dicatis omnes, et non sint in vobis schismata: sitis autem perfecti in eodem sensu, et in eadem sententia. 11 Significatum est enim mihi de vobis fratres mei ab iis, qui sunt Chloës, quia contentiones sunt inter vos. (Nova Vulgata?)

10 Only I entreat you, brethren, as you love the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, use, all of you, the same language. There must be no divisions among you; you must be restored to unity of mind and purpose. 11 The account I have of you, my brethren, from Chloe’s household, is that there are dissensions among you; (Knox)

Thus later came Jubilate Deo, issued by the same Pope.

 

[1newcatholic]

St. Paul also says in 1 Cor 1:

Thus later came Jubilate Deo, issued by the same Pope.

Yes. The Pope cited admitted in the same speech that there would be priests and traditionalists annoyed by the changes, and I imagine that he made some concessions to accommodate people who were having trouble adjusting. Reasonable people often compromise with unreasonable people.

But the Pope and Paul agree that communicating in languages that CAN be understood are infinitely superior to speaking in the tongues of “men and angels” that CANNOT be understood by the listeners. Thus the rationale for adopting a non-Latin Mass is soundly biblical, apostolic, and Catholic.

 

[clem456]

St. Paul also says in 1 Cor 1:
Quote:
10 Obsecro autem vos fratres per nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi: ut idipsum dicatis omnes, et non sint in vobis schismata: sitis autem perfecti in eodem sensu, et in eadem sententia. 11 Significatum est enim mihi de vobis fratres mei ab iis, qui sunt Chloës, quia contentiones sunt inter vos. (Nova Vulgata?)

10 Only I entreat you, brethren, as you love the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, use, all of you, the same language. There must be no divisions among you; you must be restored to unity of mind and purpose. 11 The account I have of you, my brethren, from Chloe’s household, is that there are dissensions among you; (Knox)

Thus later came Jubilate Deo, issued by the same Pope.

This passage doesn’t refer to the standardized use of the Latin language, or any particular language for that matter.

10Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες, καὶ μὴ ᾖ ἐν ὑμῖν σχίσματα, ἦτε δὲ κατηρτισμένοι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ νοῒ καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμῃ. 11ἐδηλώθη γάρ μοι περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί μου, ὑπὸ τῶν Χλόης, ὅτι ἔριδες ἐν ὑμῖν εἰσιν.

Groups and Slogans.
10
I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.f
11
For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.

 

[1newcatholic]

This passage doesn’t refer to the standardized use of the Latin language, or any particular language for that matter.

Good point. When it comes to the language of the Church, Paul seems to preference intelligibility over artistic pleasantry.

1 Cor 14.6 Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9 So it is with you.** Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. **12 So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church

1 Cor 13.1** If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Pope Paul IV: 9. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels**? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values? 10. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.11. 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.
**

The Pope refers directly to 1 Corinthians 14, which is preceded (obviously) by 1 Cor 13.

 

[1newcatholic]

This passage doesn’t refer to the standardized use of the Latin language, or any particular language for that matter.

I can read the Greek just fine, but not the Latin; does the Vulgate say “speak with one language?” Because the Greek has more meanings than that.

The problem with referencing Latin is that it is not the language of the earliest church, and imposing later Latin meanings upon them has a way of distorting what they meant.

 

[clem456]

I can read the Greek just fine, but not the Latin; does the Vulgate say “speak with one language?” Because the Greek has more meanings than that.

The problem with referencing Latin is that it is not the language of the earliest church, and imposing later Latin meanings upon them has a way of distorting what they meant.

You’ll have to ask someone who knows the nuance of Latin, cause I have nooo idea.

I posted the Greek to illustrate the point.

 

[LongingSoul]

In April 1974 Pope Paul VI sent to every bishop in the world a booklet of some of the simplest selections of Gregorian Chant, much of it drawn from the Graduale Romanum. This booklet, called Jubilate Deo, was intended as a “minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant”. It is, in other words, an official Latin “core repertoire” for the Roman Rite. It was prepared, the Pope said, in order “to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living tradition of the past. Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse Gregorian chant the place which is due to it” (Voluntati Obsequens).

A nitpick with that passage. When I went to find the original letter, Voluntati Obsequens, from which the Popes words were supposedly lifted… I found that these words were in fact not the Popes words to the Bishops but the Congregations words to the Bishops.

The Pope was briefly quoted in the letter here…

"Those who because of their special vocation in the Church need to have a deeper knowledge of sacred music ought to be particularly careful to observe a proper balance between popular chant and Gregorian chant. For this reason the Holy Father recommended that “Gregorian chant be preserved and be sung in monasteries, other religious houses and seminaries, as a special form of chanted prayer and as something of high cultural and pedagogic value.”[8]

Further, the study and the performance of Gregorian chant remain "because of its special characteristics, a very useful foundation for the cultivation of sacred music.""[9]

That original letter adoremus.org/VoluntatiObsequens.html also says this of the Liturgical changes…

"When vernacular singing is concerned, the liturgical reform offers “a challenge to the creativity and the pastoral zeal of every local church.”[5] Poets and musicians are therefore to be encouraged to put their talents at the service of such a cause, so that a popular chant may emerge which is truly artistic, is worthy of the praise of God, of the liturgical action of which it forms part and of the faith which it expresses. The liturgical reform has opened up new perspectives for sacred music and for chant. “One hopes for a new flowering of the art of religious music in our time. Since the vernacular is admitted to worship in every country it ought not to be denied the beauty and the power of expression of religious music and appropriate chant.[6]”

I think that challenge has been met with some wonderful creations. For example, I cannot sing “Here I Am Lord” right through without tearing up. My mother has the same effect with “the Galilee Song”. I remember at the last Mass of a week silent retreat (I was one of the few lay people. Mostly nuns) I went to a couple of years ago, the recessional hymn started up “here I am Lord” and during it, I looked around and saw tears running down all the old nuns faces. God be with us!

 

[SWolf]

Yes. The Pope cited admitted in the same speech that there would be priests and traditionalists annoyed by the changes, and I imagine that he made some concessions to accommodate people who were having trouble adjusting. Reasonable people often compromise with unreasonable people.

.

Uncharitable.

According to the actual vii document, Gregorian chant was supposed to have a place of honor in the mass. When the Pope tried to implement it, he was ignored.

 

[Sirach2]

A nitpick with that passage. When I went to find the original letter, Voluntati Obsequens, from which the Popes words were supposedly lifted… I found that these words were in fact not the Popes words to the Bishops but the Congregations words to the Bishops.

Interesting observation, L.S.

I think that challenge has been met with some wonderful creations. For example, I cannot sing “Here I Am Lord” right through without tearing up.

I have found that some very ordinary hymns suddenly bring tears to my eyes, and I can only attribute this to the action of the Holy Spirit, who is present at every liturgy to draw us into deep worship. I remember one occasion on Holy Thursday, we opened with At That First Eucharist, and I needed a hanky, for sure, even though I’ve heard the hymn countless times. Some very mundane hymns have also had that effect, surprisingly. We simply need to go with loving hearts and ask God to speak to us within the Mass.

The worth is not so much in the words or the music, but in the Spirit’s anointing upon them as we listen.

 

[Estevao]

Pope St. John XXIII:

Veterum Sapientia
On the Promotion of the Study of Latin

…

A primary place

But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West.

And since in God’s special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire – and that for so many centuries – it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See.3 Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe.

The nature of Latin

Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin for mal structure. Its "concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity"4 makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

Preservation of Latin by the Holy See

For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws."5 She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."7

Universal

Since "every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,"8 and since the Supreme Pontiffs have "true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful"9 of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations.

Immutable

Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

Non-vernacular

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."10 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure … of incomparable worth."11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

Educational value of Latin

There can be no doubt as to the formative and educational value either of the language of the Romans or of great literature generally. It is a most effective training for the pliant minds of youth. It exercises, matures and perfects the principal faculties of mind and spirit. It sharpens the wits and gives keenness of judgment. It helps the young mind to grasp things accurately and develop a true sense of values. It is also a means for teaching highly intelligent thought and speech.

A natural result

It will be quite clear from these considerations why the Roman Pontiffs have so often extolled the excellence and importance of Latin, and why they have prescribed its study and use by the secular and regular clergy, forecasting the dangers that would result from its neglect.

papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23veterum.htm

 

[Sirach2]

Originally Posted by Pope St. John XXIII
Veterum Sapientia
On the Promotion of the Study of Latin

Most likely, you did not see this earlier explanation. It would be good to review it.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12516047&postcount=35

 

[ProVobis]

Yes. The Pope cited admitted in the same speech that there would be priests and traditionalists annoyed by the changes, and I imagine that he made some concessions to accommodate people who were having trouble adjusting. Reasonable people often compromise with unreasonable people.

But the Pope and Paul agree that communicating in languages that CAN be understood are infinitely superior to speaking in the tongues of “men and angels” that CANNOT be understood by the listeners. Thus the rationale for adopting a non-Latin Mass is soundly biblical, apostolic, and Catholic.

In that same speech, Pope Paul also stated:

**14. But, let us bear this well in mind, for our counsel and our comfort: the Latin language will not thereby disappear. It will continue to be the noble language of the Holy See’s official acts; it will remain as the means of teaching in ecclesiastical studies and as the key to the patrimony of our religious, historical and human culture. If possible, it will reflourish in splendor. **

So what’s the deal here?

How can it reflourish in splendor if he’s suppressing it from the liturgy at the same time?

Perhaps he meant using the vernacular for evangelization and not for the norm?

Now that would make sense to me, especially since the Vatican went to the trouble and expense of producing Jubilate Deo at no cost to parishes around the world later.

 

[Estevao]

Most likely, you did not see this earlier explanation. It would be good to review it.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12516047&postcount=35

Nope, I was just posting it to counter those bashing Latin and its study and usage as some obscurantist project for eggheads and fundamentalists. An apostolic constitution is the highest document a pope can release, it deserves weighty consideration.

 

[ProVobis]

I can read the Greek just fine, but not the Latin; does the Vulgate say “speak with one language?” Because the Greek has more meanings than that.

The problem with referencing Latin is that it is not the language of the earliest church, and imposing later Latin meanings upon them has a way of distorting what they meant.

The Nova Vulgata, as I understand it, has had some corrections made based on new Greek and Hebrew they have discovered since the earlier Latin Vulgate. The word that seems to be the hangup is “dicatis” and from that alone you should be able to figure out it has something to do with something spoken. “idipsum” of course, means the same or at least it has that same nuance. Knox uses a dynamic translation, primarily from the Greek, so I’ve been told. But who complained about dynamic translations when the ICEL translated the Mass into English back in the 60’s?

I’ll agree that Paul doesn’t necessarily mean in Latin.

 

[LongingSoul]

In that same speech, Pope Paul also stated:

1. But, let us bear this well in mind, for our counsel and our comfort: the Latin language will not thereby disappear. It will continue to be the noble language of the Holy See’s official acts; it will remain as the means of teaching in ecclesiastical studies and as the key to the patrimony of our religious, historical and human culture. If possible, it will reflourish in splendor.

Unless the Pope was having a schizophrenic moment, as in “we are going to drop Latin from the Liturgy so that it will grow in the Liturgy”… I read it to be saying that by retaining Latin within ‘ecclesiastical studies’ it will regain its splendor. It’s the same with many things. Overuse and taking it for granted leads to loss of awe and respect. If you ate dessert for every meal it would not have the same appeal as as having a small amount after dinner.

 

[ProVobis]

Nope, I was just posting it to counter those bashing Latin and its study and usage as some obscurantist project for eggheads and fundamentalists.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, founder of the Benedictine Congregation of France, had an interesting take on the matter.

“Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. . . . The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits, and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of the cult than most do the Protestant people. At every hour of the day, divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. The faithful Catholic, who assists, leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart form the sermons, he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the ear of the latter doesn’t hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning .… . . . We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . .”