The Extraordinary Feature of Pope Francis's Mass: Latin

The Atlantic ^ | September 23, 2015 | Emma Green

[Mrs. Don-o]

As a visitor to the United States, Pope Francis faces a minor challenge: His English isn’t so great. Over the course of the trip, he’ll give 18 speeches, and only four of them will be in English; he’ll mostly use his native language, Spanish, to give homilies and addresses.

But at Wednesday’s mass in Washington, D.C., at which Francis will canonize Father Junipero Serra, he’ll add another linguistic twist. The main prayers of the service, along with the celebration of the Eucharist—the part of the service when people take communion—will be in Latin.

Latin! This is an exclamation-mark-worthy fact for a few reasons. “It’s very unusual,” said Father John O’Malley, the Georgetown University professor and author of What Happened at Vatican II. “It’s not unheard of, but it doesn’t make much sense, if you’re in an English parish, or a Spanish parish, to do it in Latin.”

[big snip]

...That’s why it’s so interesting that Francis has chosen to include Latin in his D.C. mass:... “He’s the first pope in 50 years not to have participated in the Council,” O’Malley said. “That’s good, because he’s not fighting the battles of the Council.”

The mass that will be celebrated in D.C. on Wednesday is not the pre-Vatican II mass. The service will include English, Spanish, and several other languages, according to a Vatican spokesperson, and the pope won’t be following the Tridentine liturgy....

More likely than not, the decision to use Latin in the mass is a matter of comfort: The pope isn’t very good at English and he’ll already be speaking a lot of Spanish, so the mass offers an opportunity to incorporate another language into this visit. But it’s a small reminder that no move the pope makes come without complicated history—and symbolism—attached.

[vladimir998]

“You debate like an activist. You start the name calling and then try to pin it on me.”

I called you no names. I only accurately described you. You, on the other hand, called me a homosexual and a liberal when you could not make an argument or even get your facts straight.

“Being wrong by one century that was 15 centuries ago does not invalidate everything I said.”

Let’s try that out: How much does it invalidate your claim? 70%? 45%? 92%? The simple fact is your claims don’t even make sense. That’s probably why you have been - apparently - completely unable to make an actual argument.

“The rest was right and I corrected the century.”

No, the rest was also wrong. You made claims and used your mistaken “century” to help bolster those claims. The claims were wrong and the fact that you couldn’t even get the century rights shows why they were baseless: you apparently don’t know what you’re talking about.

“But there is still the problem where all facts must be approved by YOU to be entered into evidence.”

Again, let’s try that out: If I accepted your mistaken century as fact would that make it factual? No, it would still be a mistake. Things are true because they are true. Your problem is you keep posting errors and erroneous claims as IF they were factual and when they are rejected for not being factual you then claim “all facts must be approved by YOU to be entered into evidence.” Start posting actual facts rather than you might be able to make an argument. That won’t happen now will it?

“You just aren’t that important in this world. Perhaps you think you are, but you’re really not. You should go talk to your priest about your arrogance and pride. See if he’ll talk to Mary for you to ask Jesus to help you.”

And there you go again. Bigotry. You keep denying it and then you go the extra mile to prove it’s true.

[Bryanw92]

>>Let’s try that out: How much does it invalidate your claim? 70%? 45%? 92%? The simple fact is your claims don’t even make sense. That’s probably why you have been - apparently - completely unable to make an actual argument.

It invalidates the date. If I say that WW2 started in 1942, does that mean that WW2 never happened? Even you can see that your argument that one typographical error does not invalidate an entire argument.

>>No, the rest was also wrong. You made claims and used your mistaken “century” to help bolster those claims. The claims were wrong and the fact that you couldn’t even get the century rights shows why they were baseless: you apparently don’t know what you’re talking about.

Again, the century was wrong. Move on. Your only means of disputing the rest was that you did not approve of those facts.

>>Again, let’s try that out: If I accepted your mistaken century as fact would that make it factual? No, it would still be a mistake. Things are true because they are true. Your problem is you keep posting errors and erroneous claims as IF they were factual and when they are rejected for not being factual you then claim “all facts must be approved by YOU to be entered into evidence.” Start posting actual facts rather than you might be able to make an argument. That won’t happen now will it?

Your facts are as much in doubt as mine. In fact, all historical fact is colored by those who wrote the history, since neither of us are eyewitnesses.

>>And there you go again. Bigotry. You keep denying it and then you go the extra mile to prove it’s true.

No. That’s not bigotry. That’s ridicule. You are not a serious person so I’m not making fun of your church or fellow Catholics. I’m just making fun of YOU. I started out in this thread by accepting that your church is still a church. I never disputed that. I tried to have an adult discussion with you, but YOU made it turn ugly when you started claiming that all other churches are not real churches. You are the bigot. I’m just making fun of you now and have been for the past few days since you threw out the bigot ad hominem attack.

In fact, I only posted my initial comment in this thread because YOUR pope was running around talking like a Watermelon Environmentalist and the leftist press was eating it up like his socialism is proof that Christians should become good leftists. If he had kept his yap shut about things he knows nothing about and had stuck to issues like salvation through Jesus Christ, abortion, gay marriage, and divorce, then I would have had nothing bad to say about him, his visit, or his church.

[vladimir998]

“It invalidates the date.”

So you only posted a date? That’s what you’re now claiming?

“If I say that WW2 started in 1942, does that mean that WW2 never happened?”

No, but since WWII started in 1939 in Europe and in 1941 for the U.S., if you had said it was 1942, that would show you had no idea of what you were talking about.

“Even you can see that your argument that one typographical error does not invalidate an entire argument.”

Except it wasn’t a typographical error.

“Again, the century was wrong. Move on. Your only means of disputing the rest was that you did not approve of those facts.”

You really didn’t post facts. You posted claims. And a wrong century.

“Your facts are as much in doubt as mine.”

Actually, no. Most likely I am the only one between us who has ever even studied this subject. Have you ever even read one book on the century in question - or even the one NOT in question? I bet you haven’t. Have you ever read even a single reputable book on the history of the Church? Have you ever read the writings of the Early Church Fathers? Any of them? Few to none, right?

“In fact, all historical fact is colored by those who wrote the history, since neither of us are eyewitnesses.”

And you talk about me sounding like a liberal? Look at you squirm there. You don’t post an argument and then you try to undermine someone else’s points by discounting everything by saying “all historical fact is colored by those who wrote the history, since neither of us are eyewitnesses”? Pathetic.

“No. That’s not bigotry. That’s ridicule.”

Ridicule from bigotry.

“You are not a serious person so I’m not making fun of your church or fellow Catholics. I’m just making fun of YOU. I started out in this thread by accepting that your church is still a church. I never disputed that.”

Your “acceptance” of the Church as a “church” is a meaningless point since the Church is the Church no matter what your opinion is. Can you make an argument of any kind?

“I tried to have an adult discussion with you, but YOU made it turn ugly when you started claiming that all other churches are not real churches.”

There’s nothing ugly about recognizing reality as it actually exists. Protestant sects CANNOT be Churches PRECISELY BECAUSE they are Protestant sects. I do not deny for a second that Protestant sects are “ecclesial communities” - that IS THE PROPER TERM. Look it up on google if you don’t know it. I also don’t deny that those “ecclesial communities” do some good in this world. But none of them are Churches and never can be Churches. They can’t be. It is a logical impossibility.

“You are the bigot. I’m just making fun of you now and have been for the past few days since you threw out the bigot ad hominem attack.”

Except I made no “bigot ad hominem attack.” I simply stated a fact. And you - proudly apparently - have been (by your own admission) “making fun” of me (as if that matters to me) because you (apparently again) know so little about the very thing you’re attacking that you took umbrage at a mere statement of fact. In the end, you’re only mocking yourself by apparently showing how little you know.

“In fact, I only posted my initial comment in this thread because YOUR pope was running around talking like a Watermelon Environmentalist and the leftist press was eating it up like his socialism is proof that Christians should become good leftists. If he had kept his yap shut about things he knows nothing about...”

Wouldn’t it be best for you to take your own advice there?

“...and had stuck to issues like salvation through Jesus Christ, abortion, gay marriage, and divorce, then I would have had nothing bad to say about him, his visit, or his church.”

And in the end, you still couldn’t even get the century right. And you think you’re making fun of me.