Pope set to bring back Latin Mass that divided the Church

The Times Online ^ | October 11, 2006 | Ruth Gledhill

[murphE]

"Well then, I guess we can propose a English only Mass."

Given the REAL past history of the early Church, that makes more sense than trying to regress back to "universal Latin".

Sounds more like a condemned error.

"If anyone says that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be Anathema ." - Council of Trent (Session XXII, Canon 9)

[Wonder Warthog]

"May I add another advantage of Latin, protection against phyletism or religious nationalism that has plagued the Orthodox with their use of the vernacular. The use of Latin is a powerful reminder that we are united in a single universal Church, a union than encompasses both space and time, a union centered on the Church of Rome."

I tend to think that the problem of phyletism is more due to the fact that the "state" in the East (starting with the Byzantine Empire) succeeded in "capturing" the Church leadership and made it stick, while the similar attempt in the West failed (Holy Spirit at work), than to the use of Latin.

I know "I" don't need Latin to understand the universiality of the Catholic Church (that's one reason I converted to it, after all).

[Wonder Warthog]

"Sounds more like a condemned error."

No. Just historical fact. Latin is the THIRD language of the Catholic Church--the first two being Aramaic and Greek.

[Mrs. Don-o]

If they do it like before, there'll be missals with English and Latin on facing pages. It was easy to follow along. The thing to do now, is to get those Gregorian choirs trained. Heavenly!

OH, BTW, the London Times needs to correct that headline: "Pope set to bring back Latin Mass that divided united the Church"

[murphE]

What you have suggested was condemned by Trent. The TLM not only has the Latin Language, but Greek and Hebrew as well.

And by the way, the arguments for the TLM are not only about the language, the TLM is different than the NO, the NO is not the TLM in the vernacular.

[Wonder Warthog]

"What you have suggested was condemned by Trent. The TLM not only has the Latin Language, but Greek and Hebrew as well.

Trent was a reaction against a growing Protestant threat. And the "anathema" regarding same is meaningless, as the language of the Mass is not a matter of faith and morals, and thus not an infallible teaching of the Church.

And I'm talking about HISTORY, not the "Council of Trent". The use of the vernacular by the early Church is a matter of historical record.

"And by the way, the arguments for the TLM are not only about the language, the TLM is different than the NO, the NO is not the TLM in the vernacular."

I'm well aware of that. Sure, the language of the NO is trite, ugly, and badly done. But it IS possible to have all of that fixed---IN ENGLISH. That is NOT an adequate argument for a return to "all Latin, all the time".

[NYer]

Actually, there are 22 churches that make up the One Holy Catholic Church. Of these, 3 retain ancient Aramaic for the Consecration. All 3 are Eastern Catholic Churches. Latin is the most befitting language of the Roman Rite. (I am RC but celebrate my faith in the Maronite Catholic Church which retains Aramaic and Syriac as part of the liturgy.)

[Mrs. Don-o]

There was a time when virtually all educated Europeans from Iona to Prague and from Oslo to Palermo --- physicians, astronomers, philosophers, poets, historians, jurists, mathematicians, etc. --- could correspond or converse with one another in Latin. It was truly a continent-wide civilization.

For centuries, the Mass was at the center of that civilization. And as recently as my teenage years, you could go any of the six inhabited continents and find people of all races and languages and all levels of education participating intelligently and devoutly in this beautiful act of worship.

I, too, love the English mass, which can be celebrated with splendor and reverence. But the Latin Mass should be --- not obligatory --- but available to all. It is such a rich part of our partimony.

I predict that particularly young adult Catholics will love it. It's -- awesome.

[murphE]

Trent was a reaction against a growing Protestant threat. And the "anathema" regarding same is meaningless, as the language of the Mass is not a matter of faith and morals, and thus not an infallible teaching of the Church.

Trent was an infallible council. The Protestantization of the mass and the faith today is partly due to the general disregard for this "meaningless" anathema as you call it.

To quote the source in my first link to you, which you seem to have chosen to ignore, a quote by Dom Prosper Gueranger:

""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. . . ."

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. . . .

Just chilling how prophetic these words turned out to be:

Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church since Vatican II

[Mrs. Don-o]

Do you really think an upstart priestling could ad-lib stuff in Latin, as they all-too-often do in English? Do you realize how damaging improvization is in a sacred rite? At least Father Off-the-Cuff will have more reason to tuck his ego in and refrain from starting Mass by saying "Good morning, folks, glad you could all get here --- some weather, eh?"

If that's not too much to hope for...

[Dominick]

Lets use a complete quote please...
Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass (September 17, 1562) Canon 9.If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only; or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema.

Those were written to oppose some particular arguments with the reformation, they do indeed apply now, it is just that many twist the meaning. Part of a reformer's arguement was that the words of consecration should only be loudly said, understandable, or of a particular form to be good for the congregation, because the congregation was the audience. I agree with MurphE this is a common error, and persists today in countless Parishes. The Mass is not a spectacle or a performance, but much more.

The point I always got from this was that the Mass was the Mass and was effective for the Good of all regardless if only the Priests was present or if there were 10,000 people present.

They do not prohibit vernacular use, they condemn those who say the rites of the Church must be vernacular only. I was not proposing that, I was trying to offer an absurd notion. I was saying sarcastically, lets replace all Latin use with English use everywhere.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"all Latin, all the time" --- is not in the offing, friend.

[murphE]

And I'm talking about HISTORY, not the "Council of Trent". The use of the vernacular by the early Church is a matter of historical record.

Here's some history for you, the three languages used in the TLM are Latin, Hebrew and Greek, the same three languages used on the Cross. (Which of course is what The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is...the Sacrifice on the Cross.

[murphE]

I was not proposing that, I was trying to offer an absurd notion. I was saying sarcastically, lets replace all Latin use with English use everywhere.

I got that, just didn't want to leave you out.

[ELS]

I would bet that most of the Church's "real business" today actually does take place in English

Try Italian, which is still much closer to Latin than English.

[Wonder Warthog]

"But the Latin Mass should be --- not obligatory --- but available to all. It is such a rich part of our partimony."

My sentiments exactly.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Trent was an infallible council. The Protestantization of the mass and the faith today is partly due to the general disregard for this "meaningless" anathema as you call it."

Balderdash 1.

"To quote the source in my first link to you, which you seem to have chosen to ignore, a quote by Dom Prosper Gueranger:"

Balderdash 2 (and why I ignored it).

[Wonder Warthog]

"Try Italian, which is still much closer to Latin than English."

So, when the Bishops from Nigeria, Malawi, Korea, Japan, etc. etc. come to Rome, they palaver in Italian?? I DON'T THINK SO! And I seriously doubt that the conversation around the coffee pot takes place in Latin, either. No, it'll be in English, just as with commerce in the rest of the known world.

To use a BAD non-sequitur---English is the "lingua franca" of today.

[technochick99]

Sorry, but I prefer the Mass to be in the vernacular.

You're falling into the trap that the change was merely about language. The TLM is much more than that. I have a missal from the 50's (my mom's). The celebration is much different - it's not just Latin vs English.

I hope for this to come about and believe our Pope will get his way. He was not happy about the TLM being tossed on to the garbage pile. This would do wonders to eliminate the serious splits and heal a lot of unneccessary pain. Would I attend? Perhaps. My parish remains quite true to the way the Mass is supposed to be, and I am quite happy with it. However, I went to a Mass in MI this weekend and the priest was quite.... free... with his following of what the Mass should be. It was a pity, actually, since he seemed to be a very good and popular priest, and almost a touch on the orthodox side, given the contents of his homily.

The US Bishops kicked out a tradition without needing to, and hurt many of the faithful. I long for the day when healing starts.