With Ancient Language, Catholic Mass Draws Young Parishioners

[LongingSoul]

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.

So true. I find with one particular hymn from my childhood that is still regularly sung at our Church that while all the years of childhood I sang it with passion … one time my daughter asked me what the words mean and in giving her the explanation, I was blown away by the profound Catholic truth of it. Something that I had absorbed by the spirit of the hymn before even contemplating deeply on the words.

It is taken from the 1865 poem The Dream of Gerontius by Cardinal John Henry Newman.

Firmly I Believe and Truly

Firmly I believe and truly
God is Three, and God is One;
And I next acknowledge duly
Manhood taken by the Son.
And I trust and hope most fully
In that Manhood crucified;
And each thought and deed unruly
Do to death, as He has died.
Simply to His grace and wholly
Light and life and strength belong,
And I love, supremely, solely,
Him the holy, Him the strong.
And I hold in veneration,
For the love of Him alone,
Holy Church, as His creation,
And her teachings, as His own.
And I take with joy whatever
Now besets me, pain or fear,
And with a strong will I sever
All the ties which bind me here.
Adoration aye be given,
With and through the angelic host,
To the God of earth and heaven,
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

 

[ProVobis]

… infinitely superior to speaking in the tongues of “men and angels” that CANNOT be understood by the listeners.

It is not superior if it’s mistranslated by iconoclasts, as Cardinal Arinze referred to them. I believe he was referring primarily to the “for you and for all” theology which the ICEL attempted to impose on Catholics and not only the English speaking ones.

Also am I the only person on earth who found that in the Vatican II document the phrase haud raro (literally, not rarely) was biasly translated as “frequently” and that the all-vernacular liturgy is based on a false premise? What were their intentions if not procuring copyrights and collecting royalties from all parishes using their translations?

 

[1newcatholic]

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…" ”

The quote is a little… dated. I looked it up and this guy died in 1875. This is 2014. I’m not saying his opinion is irrelevant, but there are many reasons to prefer other languages over Latin. Maybe there was a time and place when people wanted to abandon Latin as a dominant framework because it represented Catholicism’s cultural hegemony, but Dom Prosper Gueranger’s radical denunciation of everyone who challenged Latin’s linguistic primacy is conditioned by the radical shifts in culture taking place in his own day–but in our day, that ship has sailed. We can’t pretend like the Popes secretly wanted to keep the Latin but gave in to vernacular Masses in a moment of weakness. The principle of intelligibility in church is biblical, not a modern invention of people who dislike Roman primacy.

Latin studies are still a big part of higher religious education–it is on my to-do list for next year. Since I am a seminarian and a student of the early church, it’s not like I can ignore Latin forever. But I find it difficult to understand how we can still say, in our global context, that the church’s mission to spread the gospel is somehow a mandate to make everyone speak or listen to the same language.

I won’t deny that some people find things they can’t understand to be linguistically or artistically beautiful. I remember listening to an Imam recite the Koran in classical Arabic and remarking to a professor that it was beautiful even though I couldn’t understand it. It was passionate, intense, rhythmic and musical. The professor scoffed at the notion that something could be aesthetically beautiful and incomprehensible at the same time, but sometimes we are attracted to the exotic precisely because we don’t understand it. It could be that some young people attracted to the Latin Mass are in love with something different because it is different. The Latin Mass has the status of a relic of Catholic antiquity;* perhaps it has the effect of making people feel connected to a culture that has (for good reasons) undergone major changes in the present. But that is a pretty weak argument for making ordinary people feel inferior because they prefer to understand the language of the Mass.

*edit: for many people (I realize there are people living who remember and cherish the Latin Mass, and it is not my intention to imply that the world has forgotten them)

 

[Sirach2]

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.

However, a previous pope may never bind his successor to his views. The successor Pope may make changes, even though there is a previous Apostolic Constitution. Do you need the reference?

 

[1newcatholic]

It is not superior if it’s mistranslated by iconoclasts, as Cardinal Arinze referred to them. I believe he was referring primarily to the “for you and for all” theology which the ICEL attempted to impose on Catholics and not only the English speaking ones.

Also am I the only person on earth who found that in the Vatican II document the phrase haud raro (literally, not rarely) was biasly translated as “frequently” and that the all-vernacular liturgy is based on a false premise? What were their intentions if not procuring copyrights and collecting royalties from all parishes using their translations?

I have no idea on either count. You could be right about both things.

 

[ProVobis]

But that is a pretty weak argument for making ordinary people feel inferior because they prefer to understand the language of the Mass.

Okay but what’s the point of insulting the intelligence of those who had memorized the Latin prayers and did have a passable understanding of the liturgy in Latin?

As far as giving in to weakness, I’m not sure I’d agree. I believe Paul VI acted on information he had received in the best way he could be most pastoral about it. He recognized that he would be insulting many people but he was probably ready to grant indults to anyone who was ready to ask for it, witness the Agatha Christie Indult which was granted without fanfare. Among other things.

 

[clem456]

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. . . .”

As the other poster said, the quote is dated. No problem. Doesn’t detract from it in anyway, but you can’t apply it today in the same way.

I’m not sure how practical communication considerations which we are talking about here get translated as “hatred” of Latin. I certainly don’t hate it.

 

[ProVobis]

As the other poster said, the quote is dated. No problem. Doesn’t detract from it in anyway, but you can’t apply it today in the same way.

I’m not sure how practical communication considerations which we are talking about here get translated as “hatred” of Latin. I certainly don’t hate it.

I posted it because let’s just say I’m partial to the Benedictines. They have a great graduate business program at their local university here outside Chicago and a wonderful liturgy on Sundays.

That said, I’m glad to have this discussion with you all. I’m learning quite a bit myself.

 

[1newcatholic]

Okay but what’s the point of insulting the intelligence of those who had memorized the Latin prayers and did have a passable understanding of the liturgy in Latin?

I apologize for implying that. It’s not my position that people who still like the Latin but aren’t Latin masters are dumb. That would be not only rude but incorrect. When I speculated that some people might like the Latin Mass for weak reasons, I did not mean to say that all people who like the Latin Mass have no reasonable justification. If a Catholic church has congregants who regularly attend and appreciate the Latin Mass, and the resources to conduct Latin Mass without detracting from the Ordinary Mass of the masses, I personally think it should be done.

The only real thing I can speak on with authority is my own experience. I can only tell you how I feel when I hear people talking about how much better the Latin Mass is–it makes me feel small and inferior. I don’t know Latin. I struggle to appreciate it, although I can appreciate its beauty. Often I listen to Gregorian chant while I study, because it is beautiful. But when I go to Mass, I am not looking for something JUST beautiful; I need something edifying, something that will nourish my soul, and my heart, and my mind. I don’t think that’s too self-centered. When people champion the Latin that I don’t understand over the English that I do understand, it makes me feel like there is a superior Catholic experience out there, one that is closed to me, accessible only to a club of elite Catholics who can speak a special language. This feeling of alienation MIGHT have been (I wasn’t there when the decision was made) one of the reasons the vernacular Mass was eventually permitted.

 

[LongingSoul]

Also am I the only person on earth who found that in the Vatican II document the phrase haud raro (literally, not rarely) was biasly translated as “frequently” and that the all-vernacular liturgy is based on a false premise? What were their intentions if not procuring copyrights and collecting royalties from all parishes using their translations?

Out of curiosity, what does ‘not rarely’ mean if not frequently?

Anyway, the thing about this generation calling for the return of the Latin Mass is that they have the advantage of knowing the mass in the Ordinary Form and their experience of following the Latin Mass is through this lens. This situation would be unique to one generation of Latin Mass devotees. Their children and grandchildren would be returned to a place of ignorance of the words and loss of ritual meaning. It’s conceivable that their diminished experience would again return the congregation to flaws that the Ordinary Form was instituted to address. ie. a over dependence o private devotions during Mass and a general ‘torpor’ through lack of intellectual participation.

 

[Sirach2]

But when I go to Mass, I am not looking for something JUST beautiful; I need something edifying, something that will nourish my soul, and my heart, and my mind. I don’t think that’s too self-centered. When people champion the Latin that I don’t understand over the English that I do understand, it makes me feel like there is a superior Catholic experience out there, one that is closed to me, accessible only to a club of elite Catholics who can speak a special language. This feeling of alienation MIGHT have been (I wasn’t there when the decision was made) one of the reasons the vernacular Mass was eventually permitted.

You might like to read this, in light of your sharing here.

http://www.vatican2voice.org/4basics/sixteen.htm
CONSTITUTION ON THE LITURGY
1962: October 22 to November 13: Debate.
November 17 to December 7: First voting.
1963: October 8 to 30: Continuation of the first voting.
November 18 to 22: Voting on the amendments (modi).
December 4: Solemn final voting (2147 for, 4 against) and promulgation

Past**:** The liturgy of the Western Catholic Church,** because of a dead Latin language totally incomprehensible to the people, was exclusively an affair of the clergy;** it was, because of the petty rules that governed it, conducive to a magical kind of thinking; religious feeling was endangered through an overemphasis on pompous high masses, while private masses prevented a sense of community and led to one-sidedness, to a neglect of preaching.

Future**:** The whole People of God joined in divine worship with everyone taking an active part; common prayer, singing, and common reception of the Body of Christ. Private masses deemphasized. An awakening of the sense of the ‘living God’, who still acts on us today through word and sacrament. Expanded scripture readings with a richer, more varied arrangement of passages, with services of the word of God even outside mass. **Adjustment to national differences through introduction of the vernacular. ****Immediately understandable **ritual; purifying and tightening of the liturgical structure with an emphasis on essentials. Concession of the chalice to lay people on special occasions. Concelebration of several priests made possible. Revision of the liturgy for the administration of the sacraments; rearrangement of the ecclesiastical year.

 

[1newcatholic]

Out of curiosity, what does ‘not rarely’ mean if not frequently?

Anyway, the thing about this generation calling for the return of the Latin Mass is that they have the advantage of knowing the mass in the Ordinary Form and their experience of following the Latin Mass is through this lens. This situation would be unique to one generation of Latin Mass devotees. Their children and grandchildren would be returned to a place of ignorance of the words and loss of ritual meaning. It’s conceivable that their diminished experience would again return the congregation to flaws that the Ordinary Form was instituted to address. ie. a over dependence o private devotions during Mass and a general ‘torpor’ through lack of intellectual participation.

That’s a very good point.

I think it would be pretty cool to have a Latin Mass offered at our parish on a regular or semi-regular basis, but I don’t know if that would be better or worse for the congregation. The place is usually packed already, and no one speaks Latin. What service should be sacrificed?

The Latin Mass absolutely has great value, but as the main show? I think the Church made a good judgment call when it moved towards common comprehensibility. There has to be a balance, right?

 

[ProVobis]

The Latin Mass absolutely has great value, but as the main show? I think the Church made a good judgment call when it moved towards common comprehensibility. There has to be a balance, right?

Through all Latin’s ups and downs, it’s been the main show since the early centuries. Just not in the last 50 years. The all-vernacular all-the-time came about through either arrogance or ignorance or both, but that’s my opinion. It’s really sad considering there is more Latin on a $1 U.S. bill than there is at a typical Mass.

 

[1newcatholic]

It’s really sad considering there is more Latin on a $1 U.S. bill than there is at a typical Mass.

That’s an interesting point. How often would you say a Latin Mass is offered in your area? I suppose if I looked around hard in my area I could find one and see what all the fuss is about.

 

[ProVobis]

An apostolic constitution is the highest document a pope can release, it deserves weighty consideration.

That’s correct. It also has added weight because it reinforces earlier papal positions on use of Latin. I mention it because according to ewtn,

“As Vatican II noted, the weight to be given such teaching is “according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” Thus, more weight would have to be given to something taught many times by successive popes than to something taught once by one pope.”

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105

So did Paul VI have the power to suppress the Latin Mass altogether? Absolutely, but subsequent Popes have ruled he didn’t suppress the Latin Mass and he certainly didn’t suppress Latin in the liturgy.

 

[ProVobis]

In that same speech, Pope Paul also stated:

I should have also added:

"13. St. Augustine seems to be commenting on this when he says, “Have no fear of teachers, so long as all are instructed” (P.L. 38, 228, Serm. 37; cf. also Serm. 229, p. 1371). But, in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful “should be able to sing together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, the Our Father” (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 19).

 

[ProVobis]

That’s an interesting point. How often would you say a Latin Mass is offered in your area?

I’m fortunate as the one in my diocese is about 35 minutes away but there are two in the Chicago archdiocese which are less than 20 minutes away. FWIW, a local parish has just started a k-8 Latin program and it seems they are very excited about it. Typically I’ll go to the local English or Spanish Mass on Saturday just to see what’s going on and attend the EF on Sunday.

 

[ProVobis]

Out of curiosity, what does ‘not rarely’ mean if not frequently?

I have studied this. I think I read somewhere that percentagewise “not rarely” falls in about the 5% range where “frequently” probably means much more than that. But in the context it’s written, it follows a command that Latin be preserved in the liturgy and frequently seems to undermine that command to the point where it can be totally disregarded. If the council fathers had really wanted to make it ambiguous, IMO they would have used “frequenter” and not “haud raro.” I’m not sure but I think ICEL did the translation, and it seems like a dishonest thing to do especially when they stand to gain royalties on the deal. And of course, if Latin is used, that cuts into their take. (Don’t forget, I took grad business courses with priests at Benedictine University, studying business ethics along the way.)

 

[Greg_N]

We address especially the young people: In an epoch when in some areas, as you know, the Latin language and the human values are less appreciated, you must joyfully accept the patrimony of the language which the Church holds in high esteem and must, with energy, make it fruitful. The well-known words of Cicero, ‘It is not so much excellent to know Latin, as it is a shame not to know it’ in a certain sense are directed to you. …We exhort you all to lift up high the torch of Latin which is even today a bond of unity among peoples of all nations”

** St. John Paul II, Allocution ‘Libenter vos salutamus’, 27 November 1978: AAS 71 [1979], pp. 44-46.**​