|
Post by Stephen on Dec 7, 2017 11:01:48 GMT
On the advice of a member that shall not be named, I said I would set up a thread about the positives and need of a unified Language in the Latin Rite.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 7, 2017 11:35:52 GMT
This might shock you but I would fully support this!
If the Church decided tomorrow to go back to Mass in Latin...I would say, "hurray hurray hurray".
The door seems to have been closed by Pope Francis recently, through.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 7, 2017 12:01:56 GMT
On the advice of a member that shall not be named, I said I would set up a thread about the positives and need of a unified Language in the Latin Rite. Is it just about the use of Latin itself? LATIN MASS itself almost seems a bit too generic to even know where to start. With regards to the Latin language: I can't give a scholarly dissertation; only my own thoughts. I think just the sheer fluidity of the English language is enough to make one sceptical of it's use in something that should be as timeless as the Liturgy should be. I don't know exactly how many changes have occurred in Latin since the Tudor era, but TUDOR ENGLISH is certainly not the language we speak now, whereas even the Book of Kells has discernable Latin sentences, notwithstanding it's ornamentation. The English Mass translation has already changed since the NovusOrdo introduction, how often will this need to occur? And how much politics with each translation? Can there ever be a consensus on what words need be (horribly) made 'inclusive'? Do we NEED to do this? (I don't know if it bothers other people but, for me, the use of English where the Gospels mention money are another sticking point. Through the years they've gone from drachmas and talents to pennies, 60s translations often had dollars. Due to inflation the parables that mention particular amounts: the amounts become fairly meaningless after a generation-whereas liturgy should be timeless whenever possible). I've heard the opinion that Greek should have been the real liturgical language. The Vatican has always used Greek at times. A few parts like Kyrie have been borrowed from Greek also. Was it only because Latin was easier that we adopted it in the first place? Or does it have both a practicality and beauty Greek didn't have? Was it more likely to have been preeminent in Christ's time than Greek? The argument that people can hear the readings now is fairly legless to me. Firstly, the the emphasis should be primarily on the Sacrifice of the Mass. Secondly, I'm not sure that I myself pay any greater attention to words being read in vernacular than I do when reading in a missal. In our church all the variable parts are available every day if the year, which is fortunate. And simply having so many centuries of liturgical patrimony in Latin is argument enough for me to wish to continue unbroken.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 7, 2017 12:11:40 GMT
There's also an argument from Providence, in my view. Christ was crucified by the Roman Empire; Peter became bishop of Rome; it was the Roman empire that became Christianized; the Church's structure is based on the administrative structure of the Roman Empire. It seems very fitting Latin should be the perpetual language of the liturgy.
I've only been to a few Latin Masses and the readings were in English as well as Latin. Is this normal?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 7, 2017 12:14:03 GMT
We often hear the claim that the liturgy should be timeless, and I'm sympathetic to it. But what is this based on? Is it stated in any actual doctrinal document? (It could well be, for all I know.)
It seems to me that a distinction could be made between the sacramental essence of the liturgy and the accidental circumstances, which will be very different even if all Masses are in Latin.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 7, 2017 12:24:48 GMT
Here is the list of positives as I see them.
1) Latin is universal in a way that national languages aren't; it will be the same Mass everywhere in the world. 2) It's a solemn and dignified language. 3) It's good to have a language especially set aside for sacred matters, to distance them from mundane things. 4) As Séamus said, it cuts out the need for repeated and contentious "updating" of liturgical language. 5) It's the language of ancient Rome, which played and plays a providential role in the history of Catholicism.
Those are pretty much it, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 7, 2017 12:25:52 GMT
On the advice of a member that shall not be named, I said I would set up a thread about the positives and need of a unified Language in the Latin Rite. Is it just about the use of Latin itself? LATIN MASS itself almost seems a bit too generic to even know where to start. I suppose this particular thread is about the language aspect solely.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 7, 2017 12:41:12 GMT
Is it just about the use of Latin itself? LATIN MASS itself almost seems a bit too generic to even know where to start. I suppose this particular thread is about the language aspect solely. Yes Indeed, the use of a single language is what I intended for this thread. 😀
|
|
|
Post by kj on Dec 7, 2017 12:44:50 GMT
A return to the Latin Mass would signal to the world that the Church means business in the face of all the shrieking modernists. A simple en face Latin-English Mass leaflet on each pew will satisfy the language barrier.
As I mentioned here before, it was experiencing the Latin Mass in Cork that drew a Stalinist friend of mine back to the Church - he now attends one each Sunday in Paris.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 7, 2017 13:10:51 GMT
One of the big problems is formation as we probably all know. Many Seminarians do not have much Latin and find it very difficult to offer the Mass or read Latin.
I know a young Priests that wishes to offer the TLM, but sadly he does not know much Latin and admits that he is not the quickest learner. He is a good Holy Priest and has very little time as he has a large work load. I don't think he is rare in the Church today.
The Bishops or supervisor need to see the benefits.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Dec 7, 2017 13:57:22 GMT
From what I know of it, there was a decent collective effort involved in getting the Cork Latin Mass going - a friend of mine who's a Classics scholar helped out with some Latin teaching. It can be done if there's sufficient desire.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 7, 2017 14:02:37 GMT
It was experiencing a folk Mass that drew me back to the Church.
(OK, that's not true.)
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 7, 2017 17:06:19 GMT
Pope Francis encouraged young people a few days ago to learn Latin. No I am not making this up.
The phasing out of Latin in schools and the poor teaching of history and theology in seminaries are serious barriers in promoting the traditional liturgy but with God all things are possible I suppose. Even the brightest of new orthodox priests have received an inadequate training unfortunately.
Pope Paul VI gave a speech in the early 1970s praising Latin in the Church and then said although it was sad and a loss he was effectively getting rid of it.... The 1970s were a loathsome decade.
|
|
|
Post by Johnson of Beastrider on Dec 7, 2017 18:12:09 GMT
As a non-Catholic, I think the Latin Mass is extraordinarily beautiful, but I don't see that there's any scriptural reason for using it, beyond tradition. If people in the Latin speaking part of the Roman Empire hadn't translated the liturgy and Bible, presumably everyone would be quite happy with Greek.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 7, 2017 18:38:41 GMT
Why do you call yourself a non-Catholic? I thought Anglicans considered themselves Catholic and accepted the necessity of extra-Scriptural Tradition?
|
|