Latin Mass

judechild said:

Also during Jesus' time, the Cross was a torture-device used to kill criminals, but you can't get much more sacred than the Cross.

Click to expand...

But do we worship any old cross? No. We worship the Cross of Christ.

I think this is the thing which makes the Mass, in whatever language, sacred. These are the words of the Church over 2000 years. It doesn't matter if they are in Latin, or Greek, or Ukrainian, or English, or (God forbid) Klingon. These are the words Our Lord said. That's what makes them sacred.

Latin is no more sacred than English. It's how we use it that matters. And believe me, Latin can be used profanely. Just because people stopped using it that way doesn't mean it can't still be. (What's a Black Mass, after all?) Hebrew is considered a sacred language by the Jews. But I don't doubt the Israelis use it for less beautiful things than prayers.

So I don't care if we use TLM. I don't care if it is banned tomorrow, or the Ordinary Form is banned tomorrow. As long as the words are Christ's, that is the important thing.

But, practically speaking, I think we could use a lingua franca everyone can understand - perhaps along side the "lingua aeterna" that is Latin.

If the Mass' sanctity were dependent on the number of people really comprehending what's going on, it would quantify peoples' spiritual-worth according to their study and intelligence.

Click to expand...

I believe God has His own glory in the Mass, whether we comprehend it or not. That is why we go to Mass in the first place. But why should it not give glory to God that He's finally gotten that into our heads? And why should not our understanding and accepting what God wishes us to believe, why should that not give Him glory?

I would say this is a both/and, not an either/or. If we pray the Mass, we should know what exactly we're agreeing to, so we can live it out. We're not meant to be idiots, helpless babies. We're meant to be sons of God.

But at the very same time, even if we were idiots, helpless babies, does that diminish God's glory any more? No. We can only add to His glory by being like Him.

ChesterKhan said:

But do we worship any old cross? No. We worship the Cross of Christ.

Click to expand...

That was a specific response to Fantine's silly rhetoric, not an argument. She was saying that Latin cannot be sacred, because it was the ''language of the oppressor'' - whether you agree with me or not, anybody reasonable can see the ridiculousness of that.

I think this is the thing which makes the Mass, in whatever language, sacred. These are the words of the Church over 2000 years. It doesn't matter if they are in Latin, or Greek, or Ukrainian, or English, or (God forbid) Klingon. These are the words Our Lord said. That's what makes them sacred.

Click to expand...

It is true that the Mass is sacred in any language; I never said differently. What I said is that Latin has, itself, become a sign of the sacred, precisely because of its prolonged contact with Christ in the liturgy. It's almost monastic: for centuries being used to contemplate the Lord but not moving in the market.

I can pray the words of the Lord, and they are sacred, yes. But, as I pray the words of the Lord, I myself can become more holy. That is the sign I'm talking about.

Latin is no more sacred than English. It's how we use it that matters. And believe me, Latin can be used profanely. Just because people stopped using it that way doesn't mean it can't still be. (What's a Black Mass, after all?) Hebrew is considered a sacred language by the Jews. But I don't doubt the Israelis use it for less beautiful things than prayers.

Click to expand...

Both of those examples are evidence for my point. What is a Black Mass but a profanation of the sacred? You would not, I hope, say that the host is not as sacred because it is used in a black mass - instead, I hope you'd be able to say that it is because the host is sacred that it is mocked in the black mass; the same for the eucharistic-dialog, which is profaned in the black mass. Hebrew has been a liturgical language for millennia (at least by the time of Christ) - it's not a vernacular. Even if it were, though, it wouldn't matter; even if a sin is committed in the Sanctuary of Fatima, the Sanctuary does not suddenly lose its theological sanctity.

So, still, for the same reasons, I think that it's appropriate to call Latin a sacred labguage. It is sacred, as Sacred Spaces are sacred. Can the Mass be said in an office? Yes. Is that Mass sacred? Yes. Does that therefore mean that the Church building is not itself sacred (i.e. that sacred space does not exist)? No.

But, practically speaking, I think we could use a lingua franca everyone can understand - perhaps along side the "lingua aeterna" that is Latin.

Click to expand...

Ay; they tried a ''lingua franca'' that everyone could understand. It's called ''Esperanto"; I see them and their ridiculous signs at every papal event. It was a dismal failure.

The ''lingua franca'' of the Church is Italian. It's the language that day-to-day curial business is conducted in, the language of instruction (default) in Pontifical universities, and the language that the Pope's Angelus and Wednesday addresses are in.

But at the very same time, even if we were idiots, helpless babies, does that diminish God's glory any more? No. We can only add to His glory by being like Him.

Click to expand...

You don't understand. My response was to the comment ''if one does not know what's being said, is there really honor given to God in the ceremony?" I vigorously disagree with that rhetorical question, and, based on your statement that there is glory given to God in the Mass whether we comprehend or not, so do you.

judechild said:

That was a specific response to Fantine's silly rhetoric, not an argument. She was saying that Latin cannot be sacred, because it was the ''language of the oppressor'' - whether you agree with me or not, anybody reasonable can see the ridiculousness of that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, not the strongest argument out there. I will definitely give you that.

Still, the cross was not sacred before Christ hung on His own. The thing itself has no sacredness to it. It is sacred because Christ made it so.

But out of the Christian context, it lacks sacredness.

One example: some people have debated whether those white crosses by the side of the road you see sometimes are religious symbols or not. (Freedom From Religion Foundation, I'll bet, brought it up first.) Many people have said, "no. They are a sign that someone has died".

This is one reason we do not usually allow sanctuaries to be used for profane purposes. It would not lend a sacred character to a profane action, even something as innocent as a concert. This is also why sacramentals must be blessed, in order to, well, be blessed. Bread is not sacred until the priest blesses it, and it is not Christ's body, nor even a symbol of it, until the Holy Spirit comes upon it in the institution.

And so Latin is only sacred when it is intended use is for sacred purposes. And we make English a sacred language when we join others in prayer.

And if only it were true that Latin did not "move in the market". But it did. Most books European written books written before modern times were in Latin - ecclesiastical and secular. Or in what language did St. Augustine write of the treacheries of the pagan gods? Indeed, in what language did St. Jerome translate the vulgar prophecies of Ezechiel, or the vulgar actions of many men in the Bible?

I can pray the words of the Lord, and they are sacred, yes. But, as I pray the words of the Lord, I myself can become more holy. That is the sign I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

I take your point here. This is true. Nevertheless, again, understanding what we pray can enhance this effect of holy words.

Both of those examples are evidence for my point. What is a Black Mass but a profanation of the sacred? You would not, I hope, say that the host is not as sacred because it is used in a black mass - instead, I hope you'd be able to say that it is because the host is sacred that it is mocked in the black mass;

Click to expand...

Touche. And point taken.


So, still, for the same reasons, I think that it's appropriate to call Latin a sacred labguage. It is sacred, as Sacred Spaces are sacred. Can the Mass be said in an office? Yes. Is that Mass sacred? Yes. Does that therefore mean that the Church building is not itself sacred (i.e. that sacred space does not exist)? No.

Ay; they tried a ''lingua franca'' that everyone could understand. It's called ''Esperanto"; I see them and their ridiculous signs at every papal event. It was a dismal failure.

Click to expand...

English, however, at least if we are to believe the Internet, is a practical lingua franca.

The ''lingua franca'' of the Church is Italian. It's the language that day-to-day curial business is conducted in, the language of instruction (default) in Pontifical universities, and the language that the Pope's Angelus and Wednesday addresses are in.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I wonder if many Italians know English?

You don't understand. My response was to the comment ''if one does not know what's being said, is there really honor given to God in the ceremony?" I vigorously disagree with that rhetorical question, and, based on your statement that there is glory given to God in the Mass whether we comprehend or not, so do you.

Click to expand...

I also disagree with it.

But I do believe more glory is given if we understand what we're saying, and comply with it.

I adore the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, and whenever possible I assist at its celebration on Sundays and Holy Days (which sadly is not as often as I would wish it to be right now). I find that the liturgy of 1962—both the Mass and the Divine Office—beautifully expresses the truths of the Catholic religion. Nine times out of ten the Ordinary Form celebrations I attend use the alternative "Eucharistic prayers", which are wholly alien to the Western tradition, and which simply do not express the sacrificial nature of the Mass as clearly as the traditional liturgy does. I love that those priests and laypeople devoted to the traditional liturgy maintain majestic churches, even at the most humble level of the parish. I love the fire and zeal you'll find amongst many of those that are in the pews every Sunday and Holy Day to assist at the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Though a restoration of the pre-1955 Holy Week would not be amiss!

The use of Latin is one of the greatest strengths of the traditional liturgy. It maintains the integrity of the liturgy and it bridges ethnic and cultural gaps. A man in Warsaw worships exactly the same as a young girl in Paris. The words that are used have been used by Christians for centuries upon centuries. These are the words that have been sung by countless generations, these are the words that priests, monks, nuns, and yes, lay-people, have been studying for just as long. They have, as Judechild said above, been thoroughly Christianised. Latin as I said, maintains integrity. It maintains an objective standard. A Pole and a Frank can meet together in that language. It says one thing, and one thing only, and it's accessible to all. Furthermore the Latin of the liturgy is not complicated. It is rather simple and there's a limited vocabularly employed. This is not the Summa of Saint Thomas or the Sentences of Peter Lombard. I think certain issues should be remembered when examining the historical use of Latin. It is mostly Germanic-speaking peoples that struggle with Latin. It did not pose nearly as much difficulty of the Romance people, whose languages all derive from Latin. And the Romance people are the majority of Western Catholics. Furthermore, if you had any education, you were educated in Latin. You weren't in school learning Latin and English. You spoke English at home, but you did all your school work in Latin. Yes education wasn't the mostly widely available as it is now. But that's an important point to remember. And most of all, there's the fact that you were immersed in the language almost constantly. You only attended Mass in Latin, you would have listened to the singing of the Divine Office in Latin. And Latin was not a dead language then. It was a living language, and still is a living language, because it is a liturgical language. You were constantly exposed to it all, and you were immersed in it. Isn't this the best way to learn any language? So many people have this conception that Latin is all about learning the declensions by rote. But that's not it. No more than you learn literary grammar as a young child speaking the vernacular, you learn by hearing, watching and observing, and learning from those that do know. I think the wide-spread use of the vernacular, and greater advances in education, has actually made Latin inaccessible. We now rely on translations of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, rather than learning them by immersion. We have begun to view Latin as the sole province of the grammar class rather than as the language we sing the praises of God in.

I also think there's a serious folly in many people's understanding of the liturgy. And of course the Jesuits are to blame. There was a controversey in the early 1900s between the Benedictines and the Jesuits on the issue of liturgical prayer vs private mental prayer. It essentially pitted the Opus Dei against the Spiritual Exercises. Venerable Pope Pius XII settled the conflict, but I think many of the bad fruits of Jesuit spirituality are still evident. I say with complete confidence that a parish priest, celebrating the Low Mass on a Thursday morning, without any "extraordinary" mystical affections or experiences, but is just wanting to give glory to God and goes through the rubrics, gives greater glory to God, and merits more for himself and those he prayers for, than all the contemplations and private mental prayers of all the saints and mystics that have been and will ever be. Liturgical prayer is also primarily a material prayer. I remember the tale of one Novus Ordo priest that truly loved the traditional Mass, but he took forever celebrating it, because he had been taught in seminary that he had to "mean" it all. That's not what liturgy is at all. You intend to do something to glorify God, you kneel, you bow, your sign yourself, and you recite the words. Our personal sentimental attachments are set aside. We're not acting in our own stead anymore. We are acting in Christ, and Christ is acting in us. When a priest genuflects before the altar, even prior to the consecration, he gives more glory to God that Saint John of the Cross did during all his contemplations (assuming of course he has a right intention). I think that we, as western Catholics, have to re-orientate ourselves onto the objective and material nature of the liturgy.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

ChesterKhan said:

Still, the cross was not sacred before Christ hung on His own. The thing itself has no sacredness to it. It is sacred because Christ made it so.

Click to expand...

Sure, nothing's sacred on its own; but that's my point. The Cross is sacred because it has been made holy through contact with Christ, just like Sunday has been made holy by the Resurrection. Sunday, itself, would have no holiness - but because of ''the superadundence of the merits of Christ'' as the compendium to the Catechism calls it, the fabric of time (Sunday) and of space (the Cross) have become holy. I'm claiming the same possibility for language.

And so Latin is only sacred when it is intended use is for sacred purposes. And we make English a sacred language when we join others in prayer.

Click to expand...

I think that peoples' reasoning is flawed with they say that the Crosses are not sacred, but this post is already going to be too long. I also find theological justification for saying that the sacred character of time and space remains even when it is not observed by people. In the Decalogue, for example, even the non-Isrealites are ordered to rest on the Sabbath, and Saint Paul says that all the world has been renewed by Christ.

That English may become a Sacred Language, I do not doubt - but it's not there yet. It's actually rather like the children's book, ''The Velvatine Rabbit.'' The hobby horse tells the rabbit that, in order to become real, you must suffer in love for a long time - long after, in fact, your eyes have started to fall out and half your stuffing is missing, and your stitches are still loose after hundreds of repairs. Latin is our Velvatine Rabbit; he's worn out after millennia of being played with by the Christ Child, but closer to The Real now than ever before.

And if only it were true that Latin did not "move in the market". But it did. Most books European written books written before modern times were in Latin - ecclesiastical and secular. Or in what language did St. Augustine write of the treacheries of the pagan gods? Indeed, in what language did St. Jerome translate the vulgar prophecies of Ezechiel, or the vulgar actions of many men in the Bible?

Click to expand...

I had intended the ''not moving in the market'' more for the time of the council of Trent onwards. It's not well-known that there was considerable debate about allowing vernacular-translations at the Council of Trent, since by that time the language had long moved out of the sphere of common parlance. It's true that Latin was used until, if I remember correctly, the 19th century as the language of diplomacy (I wonder if Fantine will credit Latin for having become ''the Language of peace''), and is still used today for scientific classifications and law, but all of those are specific applications (and, especially as regards law, there is even today a general understanding that law and the Sacred are intertwined). It means that Latin is, also, a scientific language. I still think, though, that there is sufficient reason to call Latin a sacred language.

I take your point here. This is true. Nevertheless, again, understanding what we pray can enhance this effect of holy words.

Click to expand...

Theologically, I'm going to have to absolutely object to this, insofar as you apply it to the Mass and other public prayer of the Church. My first objection falls under a demonstration:

Imagine for me a parish in 1904, in a farming village in rural Portugal. The people there do not understand Latin - that is, they do not understand the exact words that are being said except during the sermon. Now imagine your parish. You are telling me that your parish, simply by the fact of understanding the words that are being said (though not necessarily, as we all know, really understanding the concepts), gives more glory to God then the rural parish in Portugal, and, in fact, enhances the effect of the Gosple's words more than they do. That amounts to quantifying the Mass that is celebrated in your parish over the Mass in that rural parish.

I also still cannot see how you can get around saying, if comprehension equals greater efficiency, that the more intelligent and studious are more efficacious pray-ers. That would mean that God receives more glory from an adult than a child, from the literate than from the illiterate, and from the doctor than from the farmer. In other words, it quantifies sanctity with bias towards the strong over the weak (the weak child is less likely to grow into an adult), the rich over the poor (the ability to read is still a luxury of the rich, we're just rich enough now not to see the places that can't read), and the learned over the simple (the doctor probably has a more refined intelligence). That those persons do not comprehend the words of the Mass as well as others is given, but I do not think that that excludes them from deeper devotion (and from giving God equal honor) than the learned who have analytical precision.

Again, I'm not saying there's no argument for the vernacular being a good idea, only that this particular idea (that God receives more glory from the comprehension of the words) is a problem.

For many people, there is no way to change their minds, but I'm not one of them. I'll tell you the two ways that it is possible to change my mind. Either you'll have to take down the theology of Sacred Space and Sacred Time (which I'm basing my idea of Sacred Language on), or you'll have to reasonably separate my theology on Sacred Language from the theology of Sacred Space and Sacred Time.

I've been to the new Mass my whole life but I always wanted to attend a traditional Latin Mass. The only problem is I don't speak Latin.

Dontcha worry man! You are not alone. I too do not speak Latin but I do enjoy it as it sounds more solemn than what I usually use for everyday communication. I think these shall help you:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/SolHighPresent.pdf
(The page numbers are kinda like Page 1-> R, Page 2-> L, Page 3->R. So please follow the pages accordingly)

http://maternalheart.org/img/missal.pdf
(Same)

http://latinmassvictoria.com/content/2013/04/Quadragesima-Missalette-R1.pdf
(The easier one to follow)

As someone already noted, the universalistic character of the Tridentine Mass was and is its greatest strength. People worship God in the same manner everywhere - Europe, America, Asia, Africa, etc. I think it's undoubtedly true that its relative decline has diminished the Church's ecumenical reach. That is why I am saddened that Pope Benedict retired. He was painfully aware of this and sought to revive, if not the Tridentine Mass itself (which he did by removing the prerogative from Bishops to "allow" the celebration of T. masses - a disgraceful rule in any case), at least the view of the universality of Mass. I wasn't aware he was interested in this (or even aware of it) until I saw his interview (then a Cardinal) with Arroyo.

myway said:

Do you think Pope Benedict retired because he was disappointed that the Tridentine Mass was no longer universal?

Click to expand...

Hahah no...where did I ever suggest such a thing?

myway said:

You mentioned that Pope Benedict brought back the tridentine mass back. I thought maybe you thought he was mad because it got taken out.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if you're trolling me.

I said Pope Benedict removed the right of the Bishops to regulate whether the Tridentine Mass were to be said in their dioceses. Priests can now say TMass without permission.

I also said he was sensitive and quite aware of the implications of including more Latin in the mass (this was said in an interview with Raymond Arroyo which is on YouTube) because of Latin's universal reach (as opposed to the local vernacular languages).

But I didn't say he was "mad" or that liturgical reform was the reason he left . Rather I said that it was a pity he left so early otherwise he might have gone further with liturgical reforms.

I prefer the Extraordinary Form (old Latin Mass), but the closest one to me is an hour away and it's usually not within our budget for me to attend more than every couple months. I'm lucky though, because my home parish also offers a very reverent and very traditionally-style Ordinary Form Mass - incense, bells, propers in Latin and a lot ot the things that attract many people to the EF, but with almost everything in English (our pastor used to be an Anglican, so that may be part of the influence). This same parish also offers a weekly OF Mass in Latin, but it's on a weekday and I haven't yet had the chance to attend