Why Do It In Latin?

[Monica4U]

I've been wondering lately what the arguments are for having the traditional Latin Mass versus the, uhh..., normal mass (I actually don't know what they're all called).

I'm new to being Catholic, and while I love doing things the traditional way, I'm unfamiliar about the whole debate about Latin or no Latin. It seems like something that people seem to disagree about, and therefore worthy of the debate table.

What are the arguments for having the Latin Mass? What are the arguments against it? Should I go to a Latin mass if I don't understand Latin?

[Laudate_Dominum]

I am personally a strong advocate of the traditional Latin Mass but I must avoid addressing the more controversial questions you've presented for now.

[quote name='Monica4U' post='1418580' date='Nov 13 2007, 02:04 AM']I've been wondering lately what the arguments are for having the traditional Latin Mass versus the, uhh..., normal mass (I actually don't know what they're all called).[/quote]
Since Pope Benedict's motu proprio concerning the use of the traditional Mass the proper terms would be the ordinary form of the Roman rite (meaning the Mass as it was revised after the Second Vatican Council) and the extraordinary form of the Roman rite (meaning the pre-conciliar Mass as celebrated according to the Missal of 1962).

[quote name='Monica4U' post='1418580' date='Nov 13 2007, 02:04 AM']I'm new to being Catholic, and while I love doing things the traditional way, I'm unfamiliar about the whole debate about Latin or no Latin. It seems like something that people seem to disagree about, and therefore worthy of the debate table.[/quote]
It is certainly true that this is something that people disagree about but Pope Benedict has made it quite clear that both Masses are valid and important for the life of the Church. Arguments and such aside I think that faithful Catholics in general will agree with this.

[quote name='Monica4U' post='1418580' date='Nov 13 2007, 02:04 AM']What are the arguments for having the Latin Mass? What are the arguments against it? Should I go to a Latin mass if I don't understand Latin?[/quote]
The reasons why people may prefer the extraordinary form go far beyond the use of Latin (which is certainly permitted for the ordinary form as well even if it is less common). And I suppose that most people who regularly attend the extraordinary form are not fluent in Latin but this is not a problem because many of the prayers are prayed by the priest in a low tone anyway. Parishes that offer the extraordinary form provide books that contain the text of the Mass so that people in the congregation can follow the prayers. Regular attendees often bring their own missal. Also it does not take that many times of going before one will be able to pray much of the ordinary (parts of the Mass that are the same from day to day such as the creed) without the assistance of a missal.

I'm sure others here will have a great deal to add.

God bless.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Monica4U' post='1418580' date='Nov 13 2007, 12:04 AM']I've been wondering lately what the arguments are for having the traditional Latin Mass versus the, uhh..., normal mass (I actually don't know what they're all called).

I'm new to being Catholic, and while I love doing things the traditional way, I'm unfamiliar about the whole debate about Latin or no Latin. It seems like something that people seem to disagree about, and therefore worthy of the debate table.

What are the arguments for having the Latin Mass? What are the arguments against it? Should I go to a Latin mass if I don't understand Latin?[/quote]

L_D knows far more about all this than myself no doubt. But one perk of Latin is that it is a dead language, which basically means that the words never change in meaning. This being the case, the liturgy can always stay the same and have the same meaning week after week, century after century. This is important for many people who believe in the sacredness of the words in the Liturgy and who believe that such words should not be changed or altered. If a Mass is in Latin (and this can go for a novus ordo service or other similar liturgical services for the most part, though I think there might be some exceptions) then it doesn't matter where one goes to Mass or which priest is giving the Mass as the Mass will always be the same all around the world.

Edited November 13, 2007 by goldenchild17

[Church Punk]

[quote name='Monica4U' post='1418580' date='Nov 13 2007, 02:04 AM']I've been wondering lately what the arguments are for having the traditional Latin Mass versus the, uhh..., normal mass (I actually don't know what they're all called).

I'm new to being Catholic, and while I love doing things the traditional way, I'm unfamiliar about the whole debate about Latin or no Latin. It seems like something that people seem to disagree about, and therefore worthy of the debate table.

What are the arguments for having the Latin Mass? What are the arguments against it? Should I go to a Latin mass if I don't understand Latin?[/quote]

There are many reasons why people love the Latin mass, the rich history of it, the sacredness, the reverence given to the blessed sacrament and the glorious chant used during mass to name a few.

As for the Latin language in particular, this is the Churches official language for hundreds if not thousands. When we pray the mass in Latin we are joining together with the whole Church through out all of history, that is this is nearly the same mass that is being said as it was 500 years ago. Thus you have something in common with those holy catholics that went before you. Also Latin was one of Christ languages (not his first), you can see this when he addresses Pilot and other roman officials in the scriptures, you are praying in a language that Jesus spoke while on earth!

The extraordinary form of mass (Traditional Latin Mass) offers great reverence and less distractions to engage in deeper meditative prayer. The Mass is rich in signs and symbols during the ritual to outwardly reflect the Sacramental graces being poured out. With every genuflection, bow and postior, the priest, alter servers and congregation are showing what is really happening at each moment in the mass for example kneeling for the consecration. The same can be said for both ordinary and extraordinary forms, but in the extraordinary form, it is shown at greater emphasis.

[CatherineM]

I realize that I risk getting fire bombed for saying this, but I don't care for the Latin mass. In Latin masses it seems like people are just spectators because they don't understand what is being said. When I have traveled in Central America, and had to attend mass in Spanish, I loved it. It was novel and different, but I was like a tourist/spectator. I knew what was going on because the motions were the same, but I couldn't really actively participate with the other parishioners. The bells that are rung during mass date from a time that worshipers were so disconnected from the mass because they didn't speak Latin, that they rang the bells at the elevation to get people's attention basically. I don't see the need to return to that. I understand that once in a while it's nice to do things really fancy, like getting the good silver out for Thanksgiving dinner, but if we did that everyday, then it would lose the feeling of specialness. If we returned to doing only the Latin mass, I would learn enough of the language to be an active participant, but I know that I would be in the minority.

[Myles Domini]

Just to check does everyone on this thread know the difference between the Tridentine Mass (the Mass of the 1962 Missal) and the Pauline Mass (of the 1970 missal). The latter can be said in Latin or the vernacular and is identical in order whereas the former is always said in Latin and follows a different order with a different liturgical calendar. Some of the responses on this thread seem to be discussing whether or not the current Mass should be said in Latin rather than answering the question the thread starter posed, which was about the Traditional Latin Mass aka the Tridentine Mass.

[praying4carmel]

I came to Rome Via England and honestly would like to participate in a Latin Mass. I really Loved the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and Left the Episcopal Church due to the changes in that church, one of which was the Mass.

I guess there is a group in Rockford IL that celebrates The Latin Mass, so I will have to go sometime. I'd better bring Kleenex though, because many times I am caught with tears!

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1418650' date='Nov 13 2007, 04:44 PM']I realize that I risk getting fire bombed for saying this, but I don't care for the Latin mass. In Latin masses it seems like people are just spectators because they don't understand what is being said. When I have traveled in Central America, and had to attend mass in Spanish, I loved it. It was novel and different, but I was like a tourist/spectator. I knew what was going on because the motions were the same, but I couldn't really actively participate with the other parishioners. The bells that are rung during mass date from a time that worshipers were so disconnected from the mass because they didn't speak Latin, that they rang the bells at the elevation to get people's attention basically. I don't see the need to return to that. I understand that once in a while it's nice to do things really fancy, like getting the good silver out for Thanksgiving dinner, but if we did that everyday, then it would lose the feeling of specialness. If we returned to doing only the Latin mass, I would learn enough of the language to be an active participant, but I know that I would be in the minority.[/quote]

I thoroughly respect your preference for the English Novus Ordo, and I'm certainly not going to fire-bomb you, but one or two of the things that you've written aren't true. The bells were rung at epiklesis not because the parishioners were disconnected due to language problems, but because the priest prays in such a low voice in the Tridentine Rite that the actual words of consecration cannot be heard.

Personally, the whispered prayer is one of the things I appreciate the most about the Tridentine Mass. There is an awe and a reverence in it that reminds me of how God came to Elijah: as 'a still small voice'. As for the Latin language, that's not really a difficulty for me. While it's possible to follow the Mass without speaking fluent Latin, and most people in the old days could manage this,that's not really the point - part of the joy of being Catholic is being able to walk into any church anywhere in the world and still feel included, because of the universal nature of the Mass. My Polish vocabulary extends to the specific word for 'dainty teacup' and the colour yellow, but I'm still able to attend Polish Masses and know exactly what is happening when. The prayer of the Mass goes far beyond language.

It's wrong to denigrate the Novus Ordo, as it is a vital part of our rich liturgical tradition, but it's equally unreasonable to suggest that the Tridentine Rite is a barrier to active participation. You might feel less comfortable there, and no one should think less of you for going to a Mass where you feel more able to pray, but it's important to recognise that the traditional Mass is more than just a fancy way of doing things.

[son_of_angels]

I would offer a few basic arguments first for the Latin mass and, second, for the tridentine mass.

for the latin mass:

1. All Gregorian Chant, and all sacred music up to the present time in the western tradition, was written in and for the Latin language. It is worth all our efforts to maintain the language, even if the only reason was to maintain the usage of this music in Mass. This Music is, in fact, not merely accidental to the liturgy, but, for the most part, an act of liturgy itself, so that maintaining it is in fact conserving a part of our liturgical heritage.

2. Seeing as the fundamental authorities in the western tradition write in Latin, and Latin is the native language of all western theological concepts, with a few usages of Greek words, it is worth maintaining Latin as the principle language of worship because it encourages a living understanding of the language (IT IS NOT A DEAD LANGUAGE), so that we can have a vibrant understanding of the text.

3. The use a very specific sacral language, like Jacobean English in many parts of the world, has the advantage of very easily putting us in mind of the intentionality of our worship, and, in a sense, demarks the boundaries of the "liturgical world" in which timeless sacred things are going to take place. This has several advantages. From my viewpoint, a liturgy accomplishes its task not by divulging sacred things, but by purposefully demonstrating the disparity between the realm of the sacred and the realm of the profane.

The only argument for the Tridentine mass that i have time to give now is that, given the latter principle of good liturgy, the tridentine mass more explicitly accomplishes that than the novus ordo, and that it maintains a line of communication with the great fathers of the western tradition, Bernard of clairvaux, etc.

[Guest KevinSymonds]

I am not going to go off on any great reason why I support the Extraordinary [b]Use[/b] of the Roman Liturgy. I would like to say in that regard, however, that the Holy Father has permitted it--[i]en masse[/i] (no pun intended)--and we are obliged to obey.

There are a number of reasons why people support the Extraordinary Use and we see some of them above. One that hasn't been listed explicitly is how people are just sick and tired of the liturgical abuses rampant in the Ordinary Use of the Roman Liturgy. It is not the best of reasons but a valid one nevertheless. It has been speculated--an inferred even by Pope Benedict--that allowing the Extraordinary Use will revive a sense of the sacrality of the Liturgy and thus improve the Ordinary Use and even affect the Extraordinary Use.

It's an uphill climb but we've got to do it.

-KJS

Edited November 14, 2007 by KevinSymonds

[brendan1104]

The following is taken from THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED Spirago - Clarke 1899.

[quote]Latin is well adapted for the services of the Church, because it is both venerable and mysterious. It is venerable on account of its origin and its antiquity; it is the language in which the praises of God resounded from the lips of Christians during the first centuries. It is a sublime and solemn thought that the holy sacrifice is now offered in the same language, nay, with the very same words as it was offered in times long past in the obscurity of the Catacombs. There is also an element of mystery about the Latin tongue; it is a dead language, not understood by the people. The use of an unknown tongue conveys to the mind of the vulgar that something is going on upon the altar which is past their comprehension, that a mystery is being enacted. In the first centuries of Christianity a curtain used to be drawn during the time from the Sanctus to the communion, to conceal the altar from the sight of the worshippers. This is now no longer done, but the use of an unknown tongue has something of the same effect, by inspiring the awe into the minds of the common people. It is a striking fact that Israelites and pagans made use, in the worship of the Deity, of a language with which the multitude were not conversant. The Israelites made use of the ancient Hebrew, the language of the patriarchs; we do not find Our Lord or the apostles censuring this practice. The Greek Church, both orthodox and schismatic, employs the old form of the Greek language for divine service, not that spoken at present. The same language is in use in the Russian (so-called orthodox) Church, not the vernacular, which is a Slavonic dialect.

The use of Latin is a means of maintaining unity in the Church, as well as uniformity in her services. for the use of one and the same language in Catholic churches all over the surface of the globe, is a connecting link binding them to Rome, and making one nations which are separated by diversity of tongues. Latin, as the language of the Church, unites all nations, making them members of God's family, of Christ's kingdom. The altar on earth is a type of the heavenly Jerusalem where a great multitude of all peoples and tongues stand around the throne, praising God. If Latin were not the official language of the Church, deliberations and discussions among bishops assembled at the councils, the mutual exchange of opinions between theologians would be impossible. Moreover, the use of Latin, the language of ancient Rome, is a constant reminder of our dependence on the Holy Roman Church; it recalls to our minds involuntarily the fact that thence, from the Mother Church, the first missionaries came who brought the faith to our shores. The use of a dead language is a safeguard against many evils; it is not subject to change, but remains the same to all time. Languages in daily use undergo a continual process of change; words drop out, or their meaning is altered as years go on. If a living language were employed in divine worship heresies and errors would inevitably creep into the Church, and sacred words would be employed in an irreverent or mocking manner by the unbeliever. This is prevented by the use of Latin, at any rate as far as the unlearned are concerned. Yet the Church is far from desiring to keep the people in ignorance of the meaning of her religious services; the decrees of the Council of Trent (22, 8), strictly enjoin upon priests to explain frequently the mysteries and ceremonies of the Mass to the children in schools, and to adults from the pulpit. But as a matter of fact, it is by no means necessary for the people to understand every detail of the ceremonial of the Mass.

"If," says St. Augustine, "there are some present who do not understand what is being said or sung, they know at least that all is said and sung to the glory of God, and that is sufficient for them to join in it devoutly." Moreover, experience teaches that the fact of the prayers being in Latin does not at all hamper or interfere with the devotion of the faithful, or lead them to absent themselves from the services of the Church. Besides, the sermons are always delivered in the vernacular; it is often used at the opening services and to some extent in administering the sacraments. The reason why the whole of the Mass is in Latin is because it is a sacrifice, not an instruction for the people, The greater part of the prayers are said by the priest secretly, so that were they in the mother tongue, they would be inaudible to the people. Furthermore, the celebration of Mass consists more in action than in words. The actions of the priest, the whole ceremonial, speaks a language intelligible to all. And if, as some would wish, all the services were conducted in the language of the country, persons of another nationality, not conversant with other languages, might be led to drop their religion on leaving their own land. Another evil consequent upon such a change would be a lessening of the respect felt for the holy sacrifice, as was proved at the time of the reformation, when the prayers of the Mass were, to a great extent, translated into German and English.[/quote]

[withouthavingseen]

Here is a link to a paper I wrote a few years ago on the topic of language in the liturgy. My historical research for the paper was very illuminating, and had the effect of both moderating and sharpening my views. In the paper, I do my best to explore the issues without engaging in polemic or controversy. Although, with a topic like liturgy that can be difficult.

[url="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgfwd24h_25ggf92c"]http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgfwd24h_25ggf92c[/url]

[CatherineM]

Anonymous-Thanks for the information. I routinely get stuff wrong. This time I will get the great pleasure of telling my Sacraments professor that he had it wrong when he taught us about the bells at mass.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I've never understood the desire to poke fun at the use of bells during the Mass. I've had one or two professors in the past who took cheap shots at tradition and the bells jab is something that I've heard more than once.
I must admit that I've heard at least six versions of how bells came to be used in this way in the Roman Catholic Mass and since I'm not familiar with the latest scholarship on this detail I must ultimately confess ignorance (or at least uncertainty). I don't think the origin of the practice is all that important though. The fact is, it is simply a part of our tradition (very small ‘t’) and I see no need to make fun of it and make people feel stupid for appreciating it. Professors and others who take jabs at the Mass in this way really just make themselves look bad as far as I'm concerned.

The Catholic religion has long used bells for various purposes, ceremonial or otherwise; from the great church bells to the simple bells heard in monasteries summoning the monks to vespers or lauds. Bells in Mass seem to highlight the fact that something important is happening and they call us to be attentive. In the ancient world bells were often used to announce the arrival of an important person. I tend to view Mass bells in this way even if this was not the original intention behind their use.
Bells are also associated with joy, solemnity and festivity which seem to be appropriate to the great event that unfolds in Holy Mass. If anyone has attended the Byzantine Liturgy they will know that bells can be heard quite frequently and I'm sure there is a profound symbolism and meaning to this.
I suppose I’m just saying that I think it makes more sense to interpret the use of bells in light of the spiritual realities of the Mass rather than making fun of it on the basis of “scholarly” opinions that may be nothing more than biased conjecture anyway.

[Aloysius]

Yes, it is quite ridiculous; it doesn't explain why the bells fall silent during the triduum, or why they are rung at length in the Easter Vigil Mass in jubilation... perhaps the laity just weren't given active participation into their calanders and needed to be signaled as to when Easter began; probably so that those backwards old Catholics could sneak out of mass to partake in all the vices they had given up superficially during lent.

I think the role the bells play during the Triduum is much more telling of their purpose during the rest of the year (they are a sign of joyful adoration). saying that it was to signal to people where they were in the missal would be as ridiculous as saying the sprinkling of holy water at the Asperges was just to try to lessen the stench of anyone who didn't bathe; or as ridiculous as that ridiculous fellow Dane Cooke who likes to say that the use of the word "peace" repetitively (in the novus ordo) is meant to signal everyone to get ready and look around so you know who you want to shake hands with at the sign of peace. likewise, the points where the priest lifts his voice for the first few words of this or that prayer; there are reasons for those being audible and the other words not being audible that go much deeper than letting people know where they are in the missal (the inaudible words tend to be prayers that you should make your own by praying along with him, the audible ones tend to be announcing his own humility (nobis quoque pecatoribus is meant to specifically refer to the priest and the servers), or reminding us to pray (orate fratres), it keeps it from seeming as if the priest is up there making a show out of his prayers, he only breaks through that silenct aura to remind everyone that he and the servers are also sinners). but people like to charecteurize these things to make the old mass look bad.