Latin Mass?

[Dale]

For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church conducted Mass in Latin, no doubt one of the reasons most Catholics knew little about the meaning or purpose of the church service. In contrast, the Eastern Orthodox always conducted their liturgy in vernacular languages.


For Roman Catholics, Vatican II authorized Mass to be conducted in other languages but it took almost ten years for the translations to be completed and approved. Only in the 1970's did Roman Catholics begin to experience the luxury of Mass in languages that make sense to those not fluent in Latin. Yet many conservative Catholics want to go back to greater use of Latin, even to compulsory Latin Mass. Only about an hour's drive from where I live, there is the town and church of Ave Maria, which has dispensation to use Latin Mass.


Is there any basis in Christianity for the special place that the RCC has given to Latin? Even today, Catholics use a lot of Latin terms.


When Paul took Christianity to the Gentiles, he could have said, “The Ten Commandments are in Hebrew, so the church service has to be in Hebrew.” He never said any such thing. He could have said, “Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount in Aramaic, so the church service has to be in Aramaic.” Paul never said that either. Once the New Testament was written, the Bishops of the early church could have said, “The New Testament is in Greek, so the church service has to be in Greek.” They never said that either.


If any language is special, or any languages are special, in Christianity, it would be Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. How did the RCC wind up with Latin? It was the language of Rome, the capital of the empire. Latin was the language of Pontius Pilate, who ordered Jesus crucified, and the language of the soldiers who crucified Him.


If church services had to be in any special language, it would be Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. But Latin? Latin has no more place in Christianity than Swahili or Mandarin.


*


*

 

[Dale]

When Catholics go to a Latin Mass without understanding the words, it sounds like they are treating the Mass as a series of magic words. They are treating the Mass as a magic ritual, not something that is supposed to instruct, exhort, uplift, and remind Christians of things they should know.


*


*

 

[judechild]

I find it rather humorous that, after insisting that the Mass be in vernacular languages, you then say that neither Mandarin or Swahili (both vernacular languages) has any place in Christianity - but that aside.

Your objection is flawed on several points. It is true that Latin began as the language of the Western Empire, and hence St. Jerome translated the scriptures into Latin in order to be able to conduct the Mass in Latin, which was at that time the vernacular. A side-point of art-history: in the right transcept of St. Peter's, there is the Altar of John XXIII. The altar-piece depicts the Viaticum (last communion) of St. Jerome; the reason that John XXIII is buried there is to form a connection between Jerome - who translated the scriptures into the (then) vernacular - and the Pope who effected the translation of the Liturgy into the vernacular. Over time, though, Latin came to be used almost exclusively for the Mass, and, like any language, over time it changed form. Its character as being used almost solely as a liturgical language is what gives it a "sacred" connotation.

On the point about the laity lacking understanding of the Mass: that idea is far removed from reality; the understanding of the Mass was greater in previous ages. One demonstration: In the first half of the 20th century, the anti-clerical government of Mexico all but suppressed the Catholic Church, but catechesis and religious devotion continued through that period, especially in the form of secret Masses being said (in Latin). Those people knew what the Mass was, and why they needed it. By contrast, if you can find me six Catholics who can describe what the epiclesis is, let alone why it's important, I'll be extremely impressed. I can also guarantee that if we took a sample, it would be the ones going to the Latin Mass who know what it is that's going on.

On magic: Hebrew was used as a liturgical language by the time of Christ - not as a vernacular one (confirmed by J.P. Meier, R. Loutrelle, R. Brown, K. Barth, and R. Bultmann). Christ participated in the Hebrew liturgies, but I doubt you'd be interested in accusing Him of listening to magical incantations. No, the Catholic who participates in the Latin Mass is not treating the Mass as magic; the Mass is the highest prayer of the Church and, since it is a re-presentation of the one Sacrifice of Calvary, it is seen as the fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy: "From the rising of the sun to its setting, my name is great among the nations; Incense offerings are made to my name everywhere, and a pure offering" (1:11). I can't make a pure sacrifice, but the Lord can. The fact that I don't matter, and the priest will say the Mass without me whether I'm there or not does not make it magic; it just means that when Catholics go to Mass, it is primarily oriented to God, rather than to me and my ego.

You're actually destroying your own ground when you claim that the language of Christianity could be Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic - presumably because those are the languages that the Bible was written in. It has never made sense to me how a Protestant can claim the Bible to be verbally inspired, and then turn around and call a translation of the Bible "the Bible." If the Bible were verbally inspired, then it would be necessary to treat the Scriptures like the Muslims do: a translation is only an interpretation of the Qu'ran. Hence, unless you are going to say that that cute little thing you've got on your shelf is not actually the Bible, then I see no reason to say that Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic should be the "language of Christianity."

The Mass is remembering, in the real way; "remembering" does not belong where you put it in post 2. "Do this in memory of me" doesn't mean a recalling-to-mind; it's a recalling-to-action - hence the festivals of the ancient Jews were accompanied by similar actions to the original types. Latin, over time, became a part of the liturgical action of the Western Church, and it's still a deep sign of the unity of the Church. I distinctly remember praying the Our Father in Latin with a Japanese man, and an Arab - even though we didn't know each others' respective languages, and I think that many Protestants seem a bit jealous that they can't hold a church together by a common doctrine, let alone a common tongue.

 

[Dale]

Judechild,


<< I find it rather humorous that, after insisting that the Mass be in vernacular languages, you then say that neither Mandarin or Swahili (both vernacular languages) has any place in Christianity - but that aside. >>


I said that these languages have no special place in Christianity, just as Latin has no special place in Christianity. They can be used when they are understood by the congregants.


<< One demonstration: In the first half of the 20th century, the anti-clerical government of Mexico all but suppressed the Catholic Church, but catechesis and religious devotion continued through that period, especially in the form of secret Masses being said (in Latin). Those people knew what the Mass was, and why they needed it. >>


I'm aware of this history. It would be more accurate to say that the priests imposed Latin on people who rarely understood it.


<< The fact that I don't matter, and the priest will say the Mass without me whether I'm there or not does not make it magic; it just means that when Catholics go to Mass, it is primarily oriented to God, rather than to me and my ego. >>


Shouldn't the church service instruct and exhort the congregation, as well as celebrate our salvation?






*

*

 

[judechild]

I said that these languages have no special place in Christianity, just as Latin has no special place in Christianity. They can be used when they are understood by the congregants.

Are you still trying to pass judgment on Jesus' participation in Hebrew liturgies? If you want to honestly analyze the Latin Mass, then you're going to need to look at it from a Catholic perspective, not your self-centered sermon-approach.

The Mass is a transcendent reality, and has meaning even if I don't understand the words - hence I've gone to liturgies in German and Slavic tongues, even though I don't understand those languages, simply because it is a good thing to do, and because I can participate in this universal prayer of the Church in meaningful ways that move beyond mere cognition of the texts of the individual prayers. Latin especially helps with the Mass parts; I don't know what "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts" is in Swedish, but there are many of us, both Americans and Sweds, that is, who know what "Santus, Santus, Santus, Dominus Deus sabbaoth" means. We don't need to know all the vernacular languages in order to pray together everywhere in the world.

I've already given you a reason why Latin is considered a "sacred" language: because it has been changed by the Mass into a liturgical language. It's actually a strong incarnational symbol. Latin, initially only one language among many, is changed by its contact with Christ into something new (Classical Latin is not the same as Ecclesial Latin). The Latin Mass allows for a concrete connection between peoples and cultures, just like Christ Himself. When a person goes to the Latin Mass, he's hearing the same words and prayers that people 500 years ago heard and prayed; it's in a sense a reversal of Babel, so that people "of every tribe and nation" - even of every time - come to pray a unified, liturgical prayer.

I'm aware of this history. It would be more accurate to say that the priests imposed Latin on people who rarely understood it.

It doesn't surprise me that you would tacitly approve of the actions of the Mexican government, and then attempt to lay the blame of "imposition" on the Catholic priests - after all, that is what the U.S. government at the time did as well, even tacitly approving of localized genocides and the slaughter of priests. It's viewpoints like that which make tyranny possible.

That aside, the language of "imposition" is unwarranted and puerile. If you'll drop the silliness and at least try and put yourself in the mindset of a priest in the 17th century, then the Mass has always, for as long as you've experienced it, been in Latin; and the fact that it is in Latin has spiritual and ecclesial meaning for you. Naturally, you would, then, say the Mass in Latin and it would not occur to you that it could be in any other language; you are not, then, imposing it on anybody. In addition, people were not chomping at the bit for vernacular liturgies; they weren't some poor oppressed group suffering under the machinations of malevolent priests. Read, if you get the chance, Norman Tanner's Ages of Faith, which talks about the popular piety of the middle ages - particularly in England. Tanner is one of the foremost church historians living - it'll be worth your time.

Shouldn't the church service instruct and exhort the congregation, as well as celebrate our salvation?

This is an irrelevant question, since the sermon was always in the vernacular; the Catholic Church simply didn't make the focal point of the Mass any person other than Christ. The Mass teaches, and so do ancient Churches through their iconography and windows - which often depict scenes from the Scriptures; even the church buildings themselves teach the truths of the faith. Let's take another example from St. Peter's Basilica. As you enter the Basilica, you see a large, round stone of violet marble right in the middle of the floor where you come in. The fascinating this about this stone is that it is the stone upon which Charlemagne was crowed Emperor. In the previous St. Peter's Basilica (the current one is built on the previous one's expanded foundation), the stone was nearer to the altar. In the present basilica, the Pope in the 16th century ordered it moved to the place where the people walk in; emphasizing the fact that, through common baptism, every Christian participates in the royal priesthood of Christ (cf. 1 Pt. 2:9). Unfortunately, I cannot post a picture of the stone, but look at it if you get the chance (and especially be sure to stand on it).

One caution I have: you should not confuse the Mass with catechesis. The two are related, of course, but the Mass is primarily there to offer the pure sacrifice of Christ to the Father, re-presented in time; it's primary purpose, then, is to God and the communion which is shared between the Church and Christ ("the two shall become one flesh./ This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church" - Eph. 5:31-32). The primary purpose of catechesis, on the other hand, is to systematically present the Faith and its doctrines. It would be a mistake to think of the Mass as primarily catechetical.

By the by, I find it necessary to mention that I rarely ever go to the Latin Mass. Still, the Latin Mass is an important and valid form of the Mass (and culturally valuable as well).

 

[Dale]

Judechild,
<< Are you still trying to pass judgment on Jesus' participation in Hebrew liturgies? >>
You brought up the subject of Hebrew liturgy. I know nothing about them. I do know that some conservative Catholics treat the Mass as an act of magic. For instance, they insist that the consecration of the host is the only reason to go to church. Learning from the priest, praying together as commanded by scripture, and meeting other Christians doesn't count.



<< If you want to honestly analyze the Latin Mass, then you're going to need to look at it from a Catholic perspective, not your self-centered sermon-approach. >>
Listening to a sermon isn't self-centered. Not listening might be self-centered.



<< I've already given you a reason why Latin is considered a "sacred" language: >>
I don't find the concept of &#8220;sacred language&#8221; in my Bible.



<< It doesn't surprise me that you would tacitly approve of the actions of the Mexican government, and then attempt to lay the blame of "imposition" on the Catholic priests - after all, that is what the U.S. government at the time did as well, even tacitly approving of localized genocides and the slaughter of priests. It's viewpoints like that which make tyranny possible. >>



This is a wild accusation. I have brought up the subject of the Mexican government's repression of the RCC on CF and I was against it. I am glad that the last remnant of that repression has now been abolished.



*



*

 

[judechild]

You brought up the subject of Hebrew liturgy. I know nothing about them. I do know that some conservative Catholics treat the Mass as an act of magic. For instance, they insist that the consecration of the host is the only reason to go to church. Learning from the priest, praying together as commanded by scripture, and meeting other Christians doesn't count.

That was not what you said at the beginning of this thread. In post 2, you claimed that the ''magic'' was that the Mass was in Latin which people do not understand: ''when Catholics go to a Latin Mass without understanding the words, it seems like they are treating the Mass as a series of magic words.'' Now, the reason that you're calling the Latin Mass a magic ritual has changed to ''some conservative Catholics,'' and how they think of the Mass. In the first place, I am not the least bit interested in your anonymous friends, nor am I impressed by them. If the people you are referring to exist, then they do have an incomplete idea about the Mass, but at least they're thinking of more than themselves.

The Mass is, fundamentally, the prayer of the Church, so it certainly can't be separated from prayer with the priest - that is why the Mass is in the form of a dialog, so that ''Dominus Vobiscum'' is followed by the congregation's ''et cum spiritu tuo.''

But, even granting existence to your friends, the perspective that the Mass is only about the Eucharist is certainly not limited to the Latin Mass, nor is it nearly as widespread as the idea that is epidemic in Protestant-Evangelical circles: that the Church is centered on my own, personal feeling, rather than on God's action in sacramental signs.

An example of the unifying and sacred use of Latin which does not separate the latin prayers from instruction is the Pope's Sunday Angelus address. Every Sunday at noon, the Pope appears at a window of the Apostolic Palace, gives a reflection on the Gospel passage of that day in Italian, and then prays the Angelus in Latin with all the people in the Square. Sure, there are a number there who are only there to see the Pope; but then, the same thing happened with some of the people who came to Jesus. In any case, your separation between prayer and instruction, and your condemnation of Latin-listeners as magicians, is puerile.

Listening to a sermon isn't self-centered. Not listening might be self-centered.

Obviously, listening to the sermon is not self-centered, but your entire approach to the Latin Mass has been that if the person doesn't understand the texts of every liturgical prayer, then it is ''magic'' or ''imposition'' or lacks the ability to ''instruct or exhort''. That is self-centered, saying ''unless it's all about me, and my understanding, then it's worthless.''

I don't find the concept of &#8220;sacred language&#8221; in my Bible.

If you have a concept of a person who has been made sacred by contact with Christ, then you have the conceptual tools necessary to see a language, changed by contact with Christ and having a unifying effect on the Church throughout the world, as a sacred language. You can see the concept in Jesus' participation in the Hebrew liturgies that you say you know nothing about (look up any of the ''feasts'' - such as His participation in the Feast of Tabernacles - and you have an example). Like the Mass, the Faith is not centered on what you, yourself, find or don't find in the Scriptures.

I'd also like to point out that the evangelical definition of Sola Scriptura is self-defeating and simplistic. It's simplistic because it treats the Bible as a set of propositions, when much of the Bible is not propositional-instructive (e.g. the book of Psalms is not for formulating doctrine; it's for praying). It has the effect, then, of simplifying the Bible far too much. It's self-defeating because, even if it was primarily a set of propositions, the proposition ''The Bible [which is a concept that isn't in the Bible] contains all propositions of faith'' is a proposition of faith which isn't in the Bible. It's also impossible to really be a fundamentalist Sola-Scripturist because of the manuscripts of the Bible, but I'll save that for another time.

This is a wild accusation. I have brought up the subject of the Mexican government's repression of the RCC on CF and I was against it. I am glad that the last remnant of that repression has now been abolished.

The accusation was not wild; you just need to be more careful how you write. When I bring up the example of Catholics in Mexico being killed for holding secret masses, and you respond that you know of the history, and then say ''it would be more as accurate to say that the priests imposed Latin on those who barely understood it,'' then I am naturally going to think that ''it would be more accurate to say that...'' refers to taking exception to my example (I.e. that it's related to you saying that you ''know the history"). The natural conclusion would be that you were placing the blame on the priests, rather than the government.

As a side note, the persecutions are not, as you stated, over. Priests still do not have voting rights, and there is a lot of land that was never returtned - just for two examples.

 

[Dale]

Judechild in post #7:
<< That was not what you said at the beginning of this thread. In post 2, you claimed that the ''magic'' was that the Mass was in Latin which people do not understand: ''when Catholics go to a Latin Mass without understanding the words, it seems like they are treating the Mass as a series of magic words.'' Now, the reason that you're calling the Latin Mass a magic ritual has changed to ''some conservative Catholics,'' and how they think of the Mass. >>



The site in the link is a standard Catholic site, answering a question about whether a Mass is valid or invalid, or, in other words, whether the consecration is valid or invalid. The answer given stresses that the “exact words”must be used, and used at the right time. If the priest mistakenly recites the formula for consecrating wine while holding the bread, it isn't valid, we are told.



The very fact that many Catholics worry about this, or even get angry about it, backs up my point. In the Catholic scheme of things, the intention of the priest matters but the fact that the congregation gathered with intent to celebrate Communion doesn't. The priest derives the power of consecration from the hierarchy. This fits the ordinary definition of magic, whether you believe it's good magic or not.



Link:
Frequently Asked Questions: What determines if the Mass Consecration was valid.



*



*

 

[judechild]

The site in the link is a standard Catholic site, answering a question about whether a Mass is valid or invalid, or, in other words, whether the consecration is valid or invalid. The answer given stresses that the &#8220;exact words&#8221;must be used, and used at the right time. If the priest mistakenly recites the formula for consecrating wine while holding the bread, it isn't valid, we are told.

Who is ''Catholic Doors Ministry,'' and why should I pay them any mind? What makes them a ''standard Catholic site?" After all, the very word implies an objective way to distinguish between ''standard'' and ''nonstandard'' sites. In fact, the site is very clear that it operates independently of the hierarchy.

I'm afraid that our Canadian friends are a little mistaken - an old priest, intending to consecrate the bread or the wine, but making a mistake, is thought to have consecrated it because of the intention with does not change the essential meaning of the Eucharistic consecration as a whole. This principle has actually worked its way into popular parlance; there is a proverb in Umbria (the region directly north of Rome): ''Ancora il sacerdote, durante La Santa Messa, fa sbaliati'' - ''even the priest, during Mass, makes mistakes.''

]The very fact that many Catholics worry about this, or even get angry about it, backs up my point. In the Catholic scheme of things, the intention of the priest matters but the fact that the congregation gathered with intent to celebrate Communion doesn't. The priest derives the power of consecration from the hierarchy. This fits the ordinary definition of magic, whether you believe it's good magic or not.

What is magical is that your target changes every post. First it was Latin in the liturgy, then it was ''some conservative Catholics,'' now it's apostolic succession and the words of consecration. Ai-karumba, I don't even think you know why you think the Mass is magical - considering you've completely dropped the subject of the OP (Latin) from your ''argument.''

Allora, you're still trying to subjectivize everything, but the Catholic Church thinks objectively. You're right that the ''congregation gathered to celebrate Communion'' isn't essential; that's because the Mass has objective value - and also why, when it snows in the States, many of the Protestant churches close, but the Catholic churches will still have Mass. You may be surprised to learn, though, that the Council of Trent accepted the reasoning of the Reformers to a point, and encouraged a move away from private masses, so that now Canon 906 reads: ''except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some of the faithful.'' The Mass is objective, and has objective value apart from the person who receives the Eucharist, but it is still oriented toward the congregation.

Now, your latest name-calling centers around the fact the Catholics wonder what can invalidate a Mass. They do this because there is something real and objective there, beyond the subjective sentimentalism of much of Protestant thinking. The Canadians are incorrect, but even their thinking is not magical. The two basic concepts in sacramental ontology are ''form'' and ''matter.'' Matter includes the items or things necessary for the Sacrament, and the form implies both the words and intention. The form of sacraments is always a prayer; the epiclesis over the Eucharist, for example, is ''Let your spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy.'' The Canadians are simply trying to answer the question of what parts of the form, if missing, would mean that the sacrament did not happen. This isn't magic; it's thinking objectively, and not self-centeredly. The spiritual life is just not all about you, sorry.

As for Apostolic Succession, maybe, despite your inability to find Jesus' participation in Hebrews liturgies in the Bible, you've been able to notice that the Apostles take the place of the Incarnate Christ after He ascends? Read Acts 19:12, 5:15, 20:7-20, etc, if you want examples of healings that are parallel to Christ's. Combine that with the succession of Matthias to the College of the Twelve in Act 2, and you have everything you need to understand Apostolic Succession as receiving from Christ (though the servants He appointed) the authority to continue His objective and incarnate work on the Earth. The incarnate and objective work of salvation is not magic, though I might say that much of Protestant prayer is dualistic and tries to separate the spiritual and incarnate aspects of man.

 

[Dale]

Judechild in post #7:
&#8220;I'd also like to point out that the evangelical definition of Sola Scriptura is self-defeating and simplistic. It's simplistic because it treats the Bible as a set of propositions, when much of the Bible is not propositional-instructive (e.g. the book of Psalms is not for formulating doctrine; it's for praying).&#8221;



Your point about Psalms isn't so. Paul quotes the Psalms a number of times in the Epistles. For instance, in Romans 8 we find:

For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.
--Romans 8:36 NIV

Compare:

Yet for your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.
--Psalm 44:22 NIV



It's a direct quote.



I'll quote a source more expert than I am on this, which is talking about Romans Chapter 3.



&#8220;3.9. In verse 9, Paul sets up his great catena of quotations, which speak relentlessly of the evil of men. In 3.10-18, he draws on Psalm 14/53, Psalm 5, Psalm 140, Psalm 10, Isaiah 59, and Psalm 36. Thus, five of the six quotations are drawn from the Davidic psalms, in addition to the earlier citation of Psalm 51. &#8221;



Link:
Paul&#8217;s Use of Scripture in Romans 3 (2) | Biblical Horizons



*



*

 

[judechild]

Your point about Psalms isn't so. Paul quotes the Psalms a number of times in the Epistles. For instance, in Romans 8 we find:

For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.
--Romans 8:36 NIV

Compare:

Yet for your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.
--Psalm 44:22 NIV

Amazing: not only has the target of your argument changed again, but this time it has nothing to do with the Mass, let alone the Latin Mass. At least this time, though, you've quoted an M.Div, rather than a ''standard Protestant website," but your source does not say that Paul uses the Psalms as doctrinal-statements.

Of course Paul quotes the Psalms - so do I. The point is that ''We are considered as sheep to be slaughtered'' is a part of a prayer, not a doctrinal-statement. If you treat it like a doctrinal-statement, then you are impoverishing it. I would love to see the hoops you'd try to jump through to turn doctoral data out of: ''Friend and neighbor you [Lord] have taken away; my one companion is darkness'' (Psalm 88) or, in the Psalm that you just quoted: ''This befell us though we had not forgotten you; though we had not been false to your covenant... Yet you have crushed us in the place of sorrows and covered us with the shadow of death'' (44:17-19). In both cases, we'd find a ''doctrine'' of God abandoning the faithful, and in the case of the latter, the blame belongs to God!

In fact, in the Romans quote, Paul is reversing the Psalmist's complaint. In the Psalms, there is no concept of the afterlife; that is why Psalm 88 rhetorically asks God: ''Will you work your wonders for the dead? Will the shades stand and praise you? Will your love be told in the grave, or your faithfulness among the dead? Will your wonders be know in the dark, or your justice in the land of oblivion?''

On the other hand (contrary to the Psalmist) Paul's point is that death no longer separates us from God: ''For I am convinced that neither death nor life... Will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord'' (8:38-39).

Pray the Psalms. Jesus did, Paul did, and the Catholic Church continues the practice through the Liturgy of the Hours. Don't treat the Bible, and the Book of Psalms, as something it is not. The Psalms are inspired songs that assist in prayer and conceptions of God and His love and mercy - here is an artistic example: Near the Pope's cathedral church, St. John Lateran, is the Basilica di San Clemente. On the apse vault there is a mosaic that shows deer drinking from four streams which are flowing out from the Cross. The image is based on several biblical images, the most obvious being ''As the deer thirsts four running water, so my soul thirsts for you, my God.'' The rivers, symbolizing the rivers of Eden, call to mind the mercy of God, who returns us to the state of innocence - which we had lost - through the water which causes one never to thirst again. The images in the Psalms are meaningful, but they are different then doctrine.

san clemente rome deer cross rivers - Cerca con Google

 

[Dale]

How many Roman Catholics attend Latin Mass where it is available?



The following is from a Roman Catholic website.



&#8220;The Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Ohio, has an estimated 500,000 baptized Catholics.&#8221;



&#8220;Sitting roughly in the middle is the city of Dayton, where a priest of the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) offers the Traditional Mass every day of the week, at a magnificent urban parish church, Holy Family. &#8221;



&#8220;Holy Family in Dayton has about three hundred attendees on average, and the church building they use is nearly half full. Sacred Heart Church in Cincinnati has about two hundred attendees on average for its Traditional Mass, and it is about half full. That would put the number at about five hundred, or ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of the faithful.&#8221;









Link:
man with black hat: The Latin Mass: Why You Can’t Have It



*



*

 

[judechild]

How many Roman Catholics attend Latin Mass where it is available?

My first point is that this is completely irrelevant, and does nothing to further any argument you might have been pushing at one point. Ad Populum is always invalid.

The second is that this is another case of you 1) placing too much faith in blogs, and 2) not being able to interpret the information.

You see, the author of the blog is talking about the ''Tridentine Mass.'' The Tridentine Mass is the Mass celebrated according to the missal put out before the Second Vatican Council. The Mass of Vatican II is called the ''Novus Ordo,'' and it also has a Latin form (in fact, the Latin is the official form). Since the author is considered only with the Tridentine Mass, all the statistics for congregates who attend the Novus Ordo in Latin are excluded; hence, the article reads:

''We did not forget the Historic Old Saint Mary's, also in Cincinnati, but their Sunday Latin Mass is in the ordinary form.''

That means that there are more who attend the Mass in Latin then the article is reporting; the article simply isn't trying to find out how many attend the Mass in Latin.

Now, there is still a stigma towards people attending the Latin Mass (and an even bigger stigma towards priests who celebrate it), consequently, the numbers of persons attending the Latin Mass is not very high. Pope Benedict did his part toward removing the stigma by publishing his motu proprio allowing thge Tridentine Mass in any place where the priest is qualified, but there's a lot of work to do. I will say that it is a much greater proportion in Europe; even in this city, there is the church of Santissima Trinità dei pellegrini, which only celebrates Mass in Latin, and it has a congregation the size of several Roman-center parishes. Similarly, in France, the number of FSSP seminarians is greater than the number of their diocesan counterparts (the FSSP - an order which is referenced in the article - only celebrates the Liturgy in Latin).

The following is from a Roman Catholic's website.

 

[Dale]

Judechild,



Originally Posted by Dale

How many Roman Catholics attend Latin Mass where it is available?​

[Judechild] <<My first point is that this is completely irrelevant, and does nothing to further any argument you might have been pushing at one point. Ad Populum is always invalid. >>



Now this is fascinating. For years Roman Catholics have been beating me over the head with
“a billion Catholics,” “a billion Catholics,” “a billion Catholics” …



Thanks for pointing out that these people don't know what they are talking about.



<< The second is that this is another case of you 1) placing too much faith in blogs, and 2) not being able to interpret the information. >>


What do you think came from a blog besides the information in post #12?


<< Similarly, in France, the number of FSSP seminarians is greater than the number of their diocesan counterparts (the FSSP - an order which is referenced in the article - only celebrates the Liturgy in Latin). >>



I'm not concerned with France but I know the figures here.


In the US for 2013, there are 17, 325 Roman Catholic parishes.
There are 26,558 diocesan priests.


There are 228 FSSP priests worldwide, as of 2011.


That's not very many.



*



*

 

[judechild]

Now this is fascinating. For years Roman Catholics have been beating me over the head with
&#8220;a billion Catholics,&#8221; &#8220;a billion Catholics,&#8221; &#8220;a billion Catholics&#8221; &#8230;

You're not talking with "Roman Catholics"; you're talking to Judechild. As such, I'm really not interested in what "Roman Catholics" say.

Thanks for pointing out that these people don't know what they are talking about.

I will ignore the irony present in the fact that you managed to incriminate yourself of not knowing what you're talking about with this statement. I will simply say that anyone who would argue "Catholicism is right, because there are over a billion Catholics" has committed logic's equivalent to mortal sin.

What do you think came from a blog besides the information in post #12?

Now that is an interesting question. What, other than the information in post 12, came from a blog? Well, I think that the population "things that have not come from a blog" is very full, but that doesn't help. In other words: what are you asking?

I'm not concerned with France but I know the figures here.

...
That's not very many.

Same objection as before: Ad Populum is always invalid. It certainly does nothing to help any arguments you've been trying to form.

And again, you haven't been able to analyze the data. The FSSP is only one religious order; there are priests who say the Latin Mass in either the ordinary or extraordinary forms in all the religious orders, and also within the diocesan priesthood. The FSSP is also very young, less than 30 years old, and it is growing quickly. It isn't even the only order that solely celebrates the extraordinary form; a few others which do so are the Society of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest (based in Chicago), and the Monks of Norcia (re-founded a decade ago in the birthplace of St. benedict by an American professor). Finally, there are also priests who assist the FSSP by celebrating Mass at their churches. At Santissimi Trinita dei Pellegrini, the FSSP parish in Rome, there are - in addition to the two FSSP priests - a priest who is a member of the Dominican Order who will occasionally celebrate Mass there.

In short, there are many more than 228 priests worldwide who say the Latin Mass in the extraordinary form; and there are many more who celebrate the Latin Mass in the ordinary form.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Subscribing.

One interesting factoid: Those parts of the Mass known as the Ordo, which are texts regularly sung week to week regardless of the season of the liturgical calendar (so the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei, and Nunc Dimmitus, historically), were still sung in Latin in many Lutheran churches, such as the Thomaskirke in Leipzing, well after the Lutheran Reformation. Bach heard the Ordo in Latin.

With those portions that change week to week I can fully understand the OP's point. But the texts of the Ordo amount to little more than full page- far less than we have to memorize, Lutheran or Catholic, in catechism classes. Learning the traditional texts in their languages of origin would probably be a good exercise for learning the meaning of the liturgy as the meeting place between heaven and earth. And I'd be quite happy doing the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic, the Kyrie in Greek, and the Shema in Hebrew (preceding the Creed in... Greek or Latin) if that would balance things out. The classical liturgical languages are beautiful. English, quite frankly, is an ugly language.

Oh, and I know what the epiclesis is! Unfortunately, the Lutheran Service Book doesn't have one, and the anamnesis is only even an option in two of the five available service orders. Blegh.

 

[Dale]

From the website of the FSSP:


<< Locations
• Dioceses served: 122
• Mass centers: 215 locations
• Personal parishes: 29 >>


In other words, there are only 29 parishes where the parish priest is a member of the FSSP.



Link:
FSSP - What are we? - A few figures...



*



*

 

[judechild]

From the website of the FSSP:


<< Locations
&#8226; Dioceses served: 122
&#8226; Mass centers: 215 locations
&#8226; Personal parishes: 29 >>


In other words, there are only 29 parishes where the parish priest is a member of the FSSP.

As usual, you are unfamiliar with the terminology, and so don't interpret the information correctly. ''Personal parish'' means the church is owned by the order - in this case, the FSSP. There are many parishes that are owned by a diocese, which has been entrusted to a religious order for a time; this is often the case with the traditional orders. In Rome, the American parish is Santa Susanna, and it is currently in the care of the Paulists, but it is not a Pauli St ''personal parish.''

The information on the FSSP hub is not sufficient to tell you how many parish churches have an FSSP pastor, and that would be because the question is immaterial. The 215 mass-centers gives you a closer idea, since those are the parishes in the care of the FSSP.

If you want to convince anybody, you really need to do some research (you also need to come up with an actual argument, instead of flailing around and hitting nothing).

 

[Dale]

Subscribing.

One interesting factoid: Those parts of the Mass known as the Ordo, which are texts regularly sung week to week regardless of the season of the liturgical calendar (so the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei, and Nunc Dimmitus, historically), were still sung in Latin in many Lutheran churches, such as the Thomaskirke in Leipzing, well after the Lutheran Reformation. Bach heard the Ordo in Latin.

With those portions that change week to week I can fully understand the OP's point. But the texts of the Ordo amount to little more than full page- far less than we have to memorize, Lutheran or Catholic, in catechism classes. Learning the traditional texts in their languages of origin would probably be a good exercise for learning the meaning of the liturgy as the meeting place between heaven and earth. And I'd be quite happy doing the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic, the Kyrie in Greek, and the Shema in Hebrew (preceding the Creed in... Greek or Latin) if that would balance things out. The classical liturgical languages are beautiful. English, quite frankly, is an ugly language.

Oh, and I know what the epiclesis is! Unfortunately, the Lutheran Service Book doesn't have one, and the anamnesis is only even an option in two of the five available service orders. Blegh.

Thanks for joining the conversation.



Have you considered how any of this sounds to someone who knows nothing about Christianity? When they come into your church, what do they learn? That's a very serious problem. The mission of the church is to preach the Gospel and take it to those who have not heard it, have not considered it, or do not understand it. When someone who is not a Christian visits a Christian church, there is no better opportunity for them to find out about Christianity. Ancient languages should not be an impediment when this happens.



Visitors should learn about Christianity in their own language.



You seem to think that in modern times it isn't difficult for educated people to learn enough Latin to understand the service. Whether that may be true for affluent people today, it wasn't true for most of history, when RCC services were in Latin and masses of people were uneducated. There is no doubt that Latin was a murky and mysterious foreign language for most people. No doubt that is one reason that Christianity didn't have more influence on the lives of the common people.



*
*

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Thanks for joining the conversation.

Sure thing. It's a worthwhile topic.

Have you considered how any of this sounds to someone who knows nothing about Christianity? When they come into your church, what do they learn? That's a very serious problem. The mission of the church is to preach the Gospel and take it to those who have not heard it, have not considered it, or do not understand it. When someone who is not a Christian visits a Christian church, there is no better opportunity for them to find out about Christianity. Ancient languages should not be an impediment when this happens.

In the first case, as I said, all those parts that change week to week- the "propers" which are the responsive parts of the liturgy and the prayers for the season or day, as well as the lectionary readings of the Scriptures and the homily- should of course be in the vernacular, and those are the parts that I think most people will look to in order to understanding Christianity and the particular interpretation of Christianity offered up by any given church.

That said, even a purely vernacular liturgy is not terribly accessible, and it isn't meant to be. The liturgy is, quite frankly, complex and involves a substantial level of inculturation in order to fully participate in the physical and vocal responses called for by the order of worship. And, moreover, I don't believe the Sunday morning church service was ever meant primarily for seekers; in most traditional churches, the climax of the liturgy in the reception of communion is there for baptized and confirmed Christians.

That said, it's not like translations of the Mass couldn't be available. Any order of worship that is written down in a service book should have English translations alongside Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/Latin portions of the service so that if a person hasn't been properly trained in them, they could nevertheless understand what is going on.

And, consider: the musical notation found in many service books is itself a sort of foreign language. For those that know that language, joining in the singing of the service comes quickly; for those that don't, they still eventually leaning the music through repetition and memorization. The same could be true with foreign language passages within a largely vernacular liturgy so long as they are translated in writing and laity are expected to learn and memorize those passages as a part of catechesis.

Visitors should learn about Christianity in their own language.

And they would. In fact, I think if any part of the Ordo is least suited for singing in the original language, its the Creed. And if we continue to speak the Creed in English rather than sing it in Greek or Latin (or Slavonic or Syriac), that would probably be best. But between the three lectionary readings (Old Testament, Epistle, and Gospel), the homily, and the Creed, we could be sure that the fundamentals of Christianity are being communicated.

You seem to think that in modern times it isn't difficult for educated people to learn enough Latin to understand the service.

You're right, it isn't. I'm part of the Dayton Philharmonic Orchestra Chorus, and I don't know Italian or German (or, in truth, Latin). But that doesn't stop me from knowing the translation of the texts, which we're required to do, and properly pronouncing them. And that's learning three sets of texts each at least four times as long as the Ordo each year. None of that memorization requires me to understand Latin syntax or morphology; it merely requires a minimal level of memorization.

I really hate it when people sell the laity or the "common person" short. I firmly believe that any person who is without mental handicapped can learn the Ordo, just as they can learn enough theology to present their beliefs reasonably to non-Christians and other kinds of Christians.

Whether that may be true for affluent people today, it wasn't true for most of history, when RCC services were in Latin and masses of people were uneducated. There is no doubt that Latin was a murky and mysterious foreign language for most people. No doubt that is one reason that Christianity didn't have more influence on the lives of the common people.

For most of medieval history, "common people" spoke Latin as a language of international trade. That was less true in northern Europe- France, Germany, England- than in Spain, Portugal, or Italy, but movements toward vernacular liturgies (whether Wycliffe in England, Hus in Bohemia, or Luther in Germany) really only began to be prominent when Latin was lost in northern Europe as a common language. And once it was lost, then it indeed became a problem that various reformers addressed. Granted, the Catholic Church took a far longer time to do so after a later loss of Latin in southern Europe (France being an exception, since services were conducted partially in French even after the Council of Trent), but that was mostly in reaction to Protestantism rather than indicative of Catholic practice during the Middle Ages.

I don't want to deny that it was a problem, and Vatican II addressed that problem far too late. But to put the blame for the corruption of medieval Catholicism and the lack of lay participation in the spiritual life on the shoulders of the continued liturgical use of Latin even after the development of separate Italian, French, Spanish, and Portuguese languages just doesn't square with history. Rather, I think both the continued use of Latin in liturgy where Latin wasn't in use as a language of trade and the lack of lay participation in the religious life of the church were symptoms of a deeper problem with medieval popular Catholicism's quasi-magical, quasi-mechnical understanding of the mass.