Latin...why?

[Aloysius]

your charecterization of what goes on at a Latin Mass is not accurate. it may appear to be "going through the motions" to one who is used to the Novus Ordo, but people are having deep and intimate encounters with the liturgy there even when they sometimes pray the rosary during it (which is not a recommended practice, but it still connects one to the liturgy as the mysteries you are praying are the same mysteries enacted upon the altar). when I go to a high mass, sometimes I follow along with the prayers at the foot of the altar up to the Kyrie, sometimes I follow along, instead, with the introit being sung over that, and sometimes I just kneel and pray through it with my own sentiments as I know what the priest is saying and am uniting myself to his words as well. every encounter I have with the Latin Mass is intimately joined to the experience of generations of Catholics and not so much ruled over by the whims of today's celebrant, not distracted from by the celebrant's personality, not distracted from by hearing the same easy to understand english words with little indication in them that there are a thousand mysterious ways to connect to each word.

I'm not saying we definitely need to make all liturgies and all parts of liturgies Latin again, I'm saying that your charecterization of what that would mean is absolutely false. I would be in favor of making all the unchangeable parts of the mass in Latin and all the changeable parts in the vernacular...

and Jesus did speak the vernacular Aramaic, but in the Temple he spoke the sacred language of the Jews, Hebrew.

[dominicansoul]

[quote]From what I've gathered about the culture of the Church before Vatican II, many Catholics were only showing up to Mass, and prayed rosaries during the entire liturgy because they couldn't follow what was happening, and laypeople didn't offer responses at Mass (which is the same today when I attend the local Tridentine Rite... about the only thing laypeople say is "Et cum spiritu tuo"). Most laypeople were going through the motions. Why do you think parishes "featured" 20 minute Sunday masses? Why was Vatican II even convened, if everything was so hunky dorey back in the day? There were clearly problems, hence the council.

Celebrating our liturgies and sacraments in vernacular languages can also help emphasize the uniformity of our worship. Through the variety of language and culture, we know it is the same Mass and the same sacraments in every place and time. Even Jesus spoke in the language of common Jews rather than the language of educated Roman citizens. We are not like Muslims, who believe Arabic is the only holy language. We must treasure our Latin tradition, but we don't need to expect every Catholic to learn the Latin in order to fully participate in a liturgy. It really is best appreciated when discovered rather than imposed, just as everyone here who loved Latin has discovered it on their own rather than having it forced upon them with no breathing room.


I think we should bring back some Latin, but let's allow that breathing room for a layperson or non-Catholic to experience the faith in their own language, and let's keep the translations as faithful to the Latin as possible.[/quote]
I somewhat agree with your last sentence, but the rest is mere speculation. I dont' have to speculate how bad things are now. I'm living it. Like I said before, none of what you are saying is happening. I repeat, 75% of Catholics have no idea what is going on during the Mass, and they don't even believe the Eucharist is God. How could the vernacular be helping if this situation exists today? Having had parents who lived through the splendor and beauty of the Church before Vatican II, I know things weren't as bad as you describe. I'm sure it happened, but maybe a very small percentage. At least not in this part of the world.

What the Latin Mass does is it takes us out of ourselves and makes us focus completely and soley on God. We don't have to respond with our voices, because our hearts and minds are responding to God. There is so much more focus on the actual Sacrifice, and less on ourselves. It's like standing at the foot of the Cross with The Blessed Mother and John, who never took their eyes off of Jesus. Not for one moment. The priest is our representative. We don't have to make responses because he is offering up the Sacrifice on our behalf. We just need to be totally present to Christ, as He is totally present to us.

During the Novus Ordo, I don't feel as much like I'm witnessing the Sacrifice on the Cross. Especially with the crazy music and people clapping. I dont' believe we should be holding hands around the Cross and singing happy birthday to people and cheering each other while Jesus is on the Cross. It's almost like all the voices are a noisy gong, a clashing cymbal....

...yet in the Latin, the voice is profound and its meaning far surpasses anything the vernacular translations could ever come up with...

I feel very much like the Latin Mass is a Mass for God. The vernacular Novus Ordo Mass is more for the people.

From what I have gathered, many non-Catholics discovered the True Faith just by walking into a Catholic Church before all the changes occurred. THEY KNEW GOD WAS PRESENT, just by the atmosphere of the Tridentine Mass and the way the people responded to God back then. The response wasn't vocal...it was in their actions, it was in their profound reverence. This doesn't happen anymore, does it? Walking into the Church now a days, you get the feeling you are walking into an auditorium, or a recital hall, or a chat room. God just seems to be ignored.

I'm all for vernacular reverent Masses. Can you tell me where to find one in my neck of the woods, because believe me, those are very few and hard to find. (Believe me, I have searched within 100 miles radius and have not found one in the vernacular that was reverent. I stick to Latin as much as I can get it!)

Edited August 7, 2008 by dominicansoul

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1620222' date='Aug 7 2008, 01:47 PM']your charecterization of what goes on at a Latin Mass is not accurate. it may appear to be "going through the motions" to one who is used to the Novus Ordo, but people are having deep and intimate encounters with the liturgy there even when they sometimes pray the rosary during it (which is not a recommended practice, but it still connects one to the liturgy as the mysteries you are praying are the same mysteries enacted upon the altar). when I go to a high mass, sometimes I follow along with the prayers at the foot of the altar up to the Kyrie, sometimes I follow along, instead, with the introit being sung over that, and sometimes I just kneel and pray through it with my own sentiments as I know what the priest is saying and am uniting myself to his words as well. every encounter I have with the Latin Mass is intimately joined to the experience of generations of Catholics and not so much ruled over by the whims of today's celebrant, not distracted from by the celebrant's personality, not distracted from by hearing the same easy to understand english words with little indication in them that there are a thousand mysterious ways to connect to each word.[/quote]

This is still only your experience as someone who does understand the Tridentine Rite. When I go, I find the priest doesn't follow the missalette, I find it difficult to know what I should be doing or when I should cross myself, and while it's always a mystical experience, I know I'm missing out on a lot because you're apparently expected to just know all this stuff without any help or pointers.

As for your description of the Novus Ordo, that pertains to a poorly celebrated Novus Ordo. Likewise, many Tridentine Masses were poorly celebrated before Vatican II. Fr. Motormouth could get the folks in and out in twenty minutes. How is that glorifying to God? You and I both know that the average Catholic in the pew was not having this deep mystical experience and union with God that you enjoy every Sunday. They were twiddling their thumbs just waiting to get out of there. In this regard, there is still much to be done, and much of it must be done on the local parish level to engage parishioners, and the Novus Ordo needs improvement because of all the problems you mention, but the Novus Ordo can be very reverent just as the Tridentine Rite can be abused.

[Aloysius]

actually, I'd say it's more common for people to twiddle their thumbs in the pews nowadays than it was back then... most people took the mass more seriously back then

things were not perfect back then, but they're even worse nowadays as regards people actually respecting and/or understanding the mass.

the priest doesn't follow the missal? i'm sure that's not true. you likely couldn't follow along, which is okay because it takes a while and at a high mass there are actually a few different paths you can take to follow along (either follow what the choir is doing which is dragging out the changeable parts of the mass or what the priest is doing silently which are mostly the parts that are the same every week, for example)

you're always missing something in the mass, it's just clearer in the Latin Mass that there's always more to be gotten. you have to get ever deeper into the mystery of it. you're not supposed to go to mass and feel like you completely understand it... because you don't and never will perfectly understand it until you get to heaven. there's always more to get, more to understand; and in the Latin Mass that is clear to you.

20 minute masses were not at all common especially on a Sunday, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the language.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620239' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:00 PM']I somewhat agree with your last sentence, but the rest is mere speculation. I dont' have to speculate how bad things are now. I'm living it.[/quote]

I think people in every time tend to magify the problems of their own day over those of the past. Is the Church as bad off as it was at the peak of Arianism? How about when popes and cardinals were throwing lavish parties and had children with various women? There have been much worse periods in Church history. And other things I've described about the pre-Vatican II experience at Mass just comes from people I've talked to who lived back then. Plus, the fact that Vatican II happened tells us all that those "good ol' days" had problems that needed to be addressed. If Catholics were so faithful back then and everything was going so well, why did the Church call a council?

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620239' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:00 PM']Like I said before, none of what you are saying is happening. I repeat, 75% of Catholics have no idea what is going on during the Mass, and they don't even believe the Eucharist is God.[/quote]

Where does that statistic come from?

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620239' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:00 PM']How could the vernacular be helping if this situation exists today? Having had parents who lived through the splendor and beauty of the Church before Vatican II, I know things weren't as bad as you describe. I'm sure it happened, but maybe a very small percentage. At least not in this part of the world.[/quote]

From what I'm told, every parish had several twenty minute Sunday masses and one sparsely-attended High Mass. Most lay Catholics, as obedient as they have been, were not engaged in the life of the Church. This is why Vatican II was necessary. Obviously, it's still a work in progress.

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620239' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:00 PM']What the Latin Mass does is it takes us out of ourselves and makes us focus completely and soley on God. We don't have to respond with our voices, because our hearts and minds are responding to God. There is so much more focus on the actual Sacrifice, and less on ourselves. It's like standing at the foot of the Cross with The Blessed Mother and John, who never took their eyes off of Jesus. Not for one moment. The priest is our representative. We don't have to make responses because he is offering up the Sacrifice on our behalf. We just need to be totally present to Christ, as He is totally present to us.[/quote]

That's awesome if you're at that place in your faith. Not many people are, and without a proper education on the Tridentine Rite and Latin, they simply tune out or don't show up at all.

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620239' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:00 PM']During the Novus Ordo, I don't feel as much like I'm witnessing the Sacrifice on the Cross. Especially with the crazy music and people clapping. I dont' believe we should be holding hands around the Cross and singing happy birthday to people and cheering each other while Jesus is on the Cross. It's almost like all the voices are a noisy gong, a clashing cymbal....[/quote]

I've been to some very irreverent Novus Ordo masses, but now you're exaggerating I'd say the music is usually boring and uninspired, I've rarely heard clapping, nor have I seen anyone hold hands outside of the Our Father. Still, the reason you don't feel like you're witnessing the Sacrifice on the Cross isn't because it's a Novus Ordo, but because it's celebrated very poorly. I've been to plenty of incredibly reverent Novus Ordo masses and it's very different from what you describe, and I admit those masses usually opt for Latin to sing the Gloria and Agnus Dei. I like having a little Latin sprinkled in the liturgy to magnify reverence at the appropriate times, but if it's all Latin I'm tempted to tune out if I'm not actively engaged in prayer or meditation.

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620239' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:00 PM']I feel very much like the Latin Mass is a Mass for God. The vernacular Novus Ordo Mass is more for the people.[/quote]

Depends on how it's celebrated. What if the priest were to face liturgical east during a Novus Ordo? And if the Mass is the Sacrifice of the Cross, then I'd say that it is for us. What can we offer God compared to what He offers us?

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620239' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:00 PM']This doesn't happen anymore, does it? Walking into the Church now a days, you get the feeling you are walking into an auditorium, or a recital hall, or a chat room. God just seems to be ignored.[/quote]

Modern church architecture and art don't exactly inspire devotion, but isn't this because the designers are disobedient to the Church guidance? Same reason Novus Ordo masses are commonly irreverent. It's not the mass, but obedience (or lack thereof).

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620239' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:00 PM']I'm all for vernacular reverent Masses. Can you tell me where to find one in my neck of the woods, because believe me, those are very few and hard to find. (Believe me, I have searched within 100 miles radius and have not found one in the vernacular that was reverent. I stick to Latin as much as I can get it!)[/quote]

The best Novus Ordo I've experience is at Mary, Queen of Heaven in Hebron, Kentucky (near the Cincinnati airport). Obviously, parishes that offer a Tridentine mass will also have reverent Novus Ordo masses. The local Dominican parishes do a pretty good job. Where do you live, anyway?

[dominicansoul]

I'm actually not exaggerating. I think your claims about the abuses in the past are very very very exaggerated.

Vatican II was called upon by the Pope to bring the Church into the modern world. And like I said...no where in those documents does it kick out Latin...yet, Latin was kicked out and even suppressed all these 40 years, so the vernacular was actually forced upon us whether we wanted it or not!!!

70% OF NOVUS ORDO CATHOLICS NOW HOLD AN HERETICAL BELIEF IN THE HOLY EUCHARIST. (I added the 5% to account for the 7 years this was last done by Gallup. This poll was sponsored by St. Athanasius Roman Catholic Church in Vienna, VA)

Specifically,

1) 29% of Novus Ordo Catholics believe that when receiving Holy
Communion, they are receiving bread and wine, which symbolize the spirit and
teachings of Jesus Christ, and in so doing are expressing their attachment to
His Person and words. This is the heresy of Protestant John Zwingli, who
taught the false doctrine that the Mass is merely a symbolic commemoration of
Christ's death.

2) 24% of Novus Ordo Catholics believe that when receiving Holy
Communion, they are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, which has become
that because of their personal belief. This is the heresy of Protestant John
Calvin, who taught the false doctrine that the faith of the recipient
transforms the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

3) 10% of Novus Ordo Catholics believe that when receiving Holy
Communion, they are receiving bread and wine, in which Jesus Christ is really
and truly present. This is the heresy of Protestant Martin Luther, who taugh
the false doctrine known as "consubstantiation," that the Body and Blood of
Christ coexist with the elements of bread and wine during the Eucharist.

4) 8% of Novus Ordo Catholics hold some other non-Catholic belief.

5) Only 30% of Novus Ordo Catholics believe that they are really and
truly receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ
under the appearance of Bread and Wine. This has always been the Church's
dogma regarding the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

GALLUP POLLS: MASS ATTENDANCE IN THE UNITED STATES

According primarily to Gallup Polls in various years, Sunday Mass
attendance among Catholics in the United States has sunk by 400% since Vatican
II. When asked whether they had attended Mass within the past week, the
following percentage of Catholics answered yes:

1958: 74%
1965: 71%, after the Mass was allowed to be said in the vulgar tongues
1968: 65%, after the very words of Consecration were changed
1969: 63%, when the Novus Ordo Worship Service was first announced
1970: 60%, when the Novus Ordo Worship Service was introduced
1971: 50%, after one year of exclusive Novus Ordo worship services
1988: 48%
1993: 25%
1995: 22%
1999: 19%, after twenty years of exclusive Novus Ordo worship services
2001: 17%

Even the Gallup Poll's numbers are challenged as high. Statistician Kirk
Hadaway and a research team counted cars in the parking lot over a period of
several months. His finding: Americans over-report their actual church
attendance by a marked degree by almost twice as much as actual. In two
separate studies on Roman Catholics, he found an even greater disparity between
the numbers reported and actual attendance.

22% OF CATHOLICS, SOME 5,600,000, STOPPED ATTENDING MASS BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES
IN THE CHURCH.
(I know one of these Catholics personally...)

yup. These numbers don't exaggerate....

[quote]That's awesome if you're at that place in your faith. Not many people are, and without a proper education on the Tridentine Rite and Latin, they simply tune out or don't show up at all.[/quote]

yeah...I can plainly see how "educated" Catholics are today about the vernacular Masses....it's in their own language and they are tuned out and don't show up at all.....

[Deb]

I think that if you go to a church that holds hands and sings happy birthday, hmmm, maybe time to change churches.
I do not agree that people do not know what is going on in the Mass. Maybe in your church they don't, but they do in mine.
Our priest put out a nine month cd series over the last year just on the Mass. It was great. Every household got one and it explained every meaning of everything in the Mass. It is not the form of the Mass that is a problem if people are not entering into the Mass, it is the congregation and whomever is leading it.
We need strong teachers and leaders in every parish. If you don't have that, then become one. Maybe everyone needs to learn about the Mass in their own language before taking them to one they don't know.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620368' date='Aug 7 2008, 04:24 PM']Vatican II was called upon by the Pope to bring the Church into the modern world. And like I said...no where in those documents does it kick out Latin...yet, Latin was kicked out and even suppressed all these 40 years, so the vernacular was actually forced upon us whether we wanted it or not!!![/quote]

Then how did we end up with the Novus Ordo in English? I'm reading news stories about the Vatican presenting revisions of the English translation before the American bishops (who, I think, rejected it). I guess the vernacular is being "forced upon" us, but I consider that a good thing overall. However, I don't think Latin should be suppressed. There is a middle ground between those two extremes where I believe the Church wants us to be.

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620368' date='Aug 7 2008, 04:24 PM']70% OF NOVUS ORDO CATHOLICS NOW HOLD AN HERETICAL BELIEF IN THE HOLY EUCHARIST. (I added the 5% to account for the 7 years this was last done by Gallup. This poll was sponsored by St. Athanasius Roman Catholic Church in Vienna, VA)[/quote]

Is St. Athanasius still a Roman Catholic parish? I couldn't find a web site for them or a reference to the parish on Diocese of Arlington's web site. Although Gallup is reputable and unbiased, I'd still like to know the parish's motives.

I suspect they are not Catholic any more due to the language used here:

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620368' date='Aug 7 2008, 04:24 PM']1958: 74%
1965: 71%, after the Mass was allowed to be said in the vulgar tongues
1968: 65%, after the very words of Consecration were changed
1969: 63%, when the Novus Ordo Worship Service was first announced
1970: 60%, when the Novus Ordo Worship Service was introduced
1971: 50%, after one year of exclusive Novus Ordo worship services
1988: 48%
1993: 25%
1995: 22%
1999: 19%, after twenty years of exclusive Novus Ordo worship services
2001: 17%[/quote]

Regardless of the Rite, the Mass is never a "Worship Service."

Now, the error that could be easily made here is correlating the Novus Ordo with the drop in attendance. Do we have valid reason to believe the two are connected? Are the other reasons why Catholics do not attend Mass as frequently? Have other Christian denomionations also seen a drop in attendance? Has American society in general become more secular?

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620368' date='Aug 7 2008, 04:24 PM']yup. These numbers don't exaggerate....[/quote]

They don't exaggerate and they are unfortunate, but they can also be easily misinterpreted. I think there is more for us to consider than the one thing we can least control. Our bishops are in charge of the liturgy. We are in charge of pursuing holiness and helping others do the same through evangelization.

[dominicansoul]

That language is from the Gallup poll not the parish. And as far as I know, not wanting to make judgements on parishes just 'cos they don't have websites...it is a Roman Catholic parish...

I didn't want to change the language of the quote...because it isn't mine to change

And, again, I find it hard to swallow that we are much better off now than we have been before...again...if it wasn't messed up...why "fix" it. The polls show even the drastic drop in Mass attendance. I do blame the vernacular, because it changed the whole face of the Mass...and the way we Worship the Almighty God. With Latin, there was no room for mis-interpretation, or adding personal changes, and just the whole ho-hum attitude of Catholics toward the Mass...

..we are the 25% who have a grasp on what it all means....and although I am not dis-agreeing with everything you have pointed out....I have submitted these points to answer the topics question.

[Deb]

I believe the ho-hum attitude of some Catholics, maybe many, are that they are more into the secular world than the religious and I am not sure that is going to be changed by changing the Mass. That is in the core of a persons heart and soul.
I think it is time to re-catechize all Catholics.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Deb

[Cam42]

In reading through this thread, I have noticed a couple of things.....

1. No where is it simply a matter of opinion that Latin is to be used. As a matter of fact, Vatican Council II speaks to the contrary.

[quote]Sacrosanctum Concilium #36. 1. [b]Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.[/b]

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to [b]some of the prayers and chants[/b], according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.[/quote]

There was never to be a wholesale dropping of the Language. It was a move away from the directive of Vatican Council II to make the whole Mass move to the "mother tongue."

[quote]The Catholic Church is not a national church; it is a Church for all nations under the sun. Universality is one of the marks by which it is distinguished from all other churches bearing the name Christian. Hence a universal language is necessary in its public worship. One hundred years ago, before English became a common language in international business life, the lack of a universal language was much deplored, and various attempts had been made to invent one. For the Catholic Church, in which the necessity of such a language is more urgent, a universal language has been providentially supplied. The possession of a common language is essential, not to the existence of the Church, but to its well-being. (Una Voce; Los Angeles)[/quote]

Looking at what was said here, we see that it is universality, which was earlier mentioned, but quickly dismissed. It should not be done. While by no means does everyone understand Latin, it is very naive to say that we cannot understand it.

Let's not forget that we purport ourselves to live in one of the smartest countries in the world. We claim to be experts in any number of matters, sports, science, finance, world politics, and as it stands to say that we cannot understand what goes on in a Latin Mass is selling short, on purpose. That is a cop out. There is no logic in saying that we are too "dumb" to understand the Latin used in Mass. I don't buy it. We know what is being done, even though we cannot understand all that is being said. However every Catholic can know what the priest is saying by simply following along in a missal, which has the English and Latin words side by side in columns. And there is no defense against this as most parishes have vernacular missalettes in the pews for the faithful to use EVEN THOUGH the Mass is in "the mother tongue."

[quote]Some people think, or have the perception, that the Second Vatican Council discouraged the use of Latin in the liturgy. This is not the case.

Just before he opened the Council, Blessed Pope John Paul XXIII in 1962 issued an Apostolic Constitution, to insist on the use of Latin in the Church. The Second Vatican Council, although it admitted some introduction of the vernacular, insisted on the place of Latin: "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36). The Council also required that seminarians "should acquire a command of Latin which will enable them to understand and use the source material of so many sciences and the documents of the Church as well" (Optatam Totius, 13). The Code of Canon Law published in 1983 enacts that "the eucharistic celebration: is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided the liturgical texts have been lawfully approved" (Canon 928).

Those, therefore, who want to give the impression that the Church has put Latin away from her liturgy are mistaken. A manifestation of people's acceptance of Latin liturgy well celebrated was had at world level in April, 2005, when millions followed the burial rites of Pope John Paul II and then, two weeks later, the inauguration Mass of Pope Benedict XVI over the television.

It is remarkable that young people welcome the Mass celebrated sometimes in Latin. Problems are not lacking. So, too, there are misunderstandings and wrong approaches on the part of some priests on the use of Latin. But to get the matter in better focus, it is necessary first to examine the use of the vernacular in the liturgy of the Roman Rite today.(Francis Card. Arinze; LANGUAGE IN THE ROMAN RITE LITURGY:
LATIN AND VERNACULAR: Keynote Address at Gateway Liturgical Conference, St Louis, Missouri, November 11, 2006[/quote]

[quote]The Popes and the Roman Church have found Latin very suitable for many reasons. It fits a Church which is universal, a Church in which all peoples, languages and cultures should feel at home and no one is regarded as a stranger. Moreover, the Latin language has a certain stability which daily spoken languages where words change often in shades of meaning cannot have. An example is the translation of the Latin "propagare". The Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples when it was founded in 1627 was called "Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide". But at the time of the Second Vatican Council many modern languages use the word "propaganda" in the sense in which we say "political propaganda". Therefore there is a preference in the Church today to avoid the expression "de propaganda Fide", in favor of "the Evangelization of Peoples". Latin has the characteristic of words and expressions retaining their meaning generation after generation. This is an advantage when it comes to the articulation of our Catholic faith and the preparation of papal and other Church documents. Even the modern universities appreciate this point and have some of their solemn titles in Latin.

Blessed Pope John XXIII- in his Apostolic Constitution, Veterum Sapientia, issued on February 22, 1962, gives these two reasons and adds a third. The Latin language has a nobility and dignity which are not negligible (cf Veterum Sapientia, 5, 6, 7). We can add that Latin is concise, precise and poetically measured.

Is it not admirable that people, especially well trained clerics, can meet in international gatherings and be able to communicate at least in Latin? More importantly, is it a small matter that one million young people could meet in the World Youth Day Convention in Rome in 2000, in Toronto in 2002 and in Cologne in 2005, and be able to sing parts of the Mass, and especially the Credo, in Latin? Theologians can study the original writings of the early Latin Fathers and of the Scholastics without tears because these were written in Latin.

It is true that there is a tendency, both in the Church and in the world at large, to give more attention today to modern languages, like English, French and Spanish, which can help one secure a job quicker in the modern employment market or in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in their country. But the exhortation of Pope Benedict XVI to the students of the Faculty of Christian and Classical Letters of the Pontifical Salesian University of Rome, at the end of the Wednesday General Audience of February 22, 2006, retains its validity and relevance. And he pronounced it in Latin! Here is my free English translation: "Quite rightly our predecessors have urged the study of the great Latin language so that one may learn better the saving doctrine that is found in ecclesiastical and humanistic disciplines. In the same way we urge you to cultivate this activity so that as many as possible may have access to this treasure and appreciate its importance" (In L'Osservatore Romano, 45 (23 Feb. 2006, p. 5). (Ibid.)[/quote]

So, I would think that the words of the Prefect of Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments might hold some weight.

BTW, don't out so much emphasis on stats. They are only as good as those who are asked. And I would be willing to bet that there was not a good cross section of the 2 billion Catholics that were asked.

[puellapaschalis]

1. The Church says so.
2. Latin makes you think. It helps you get rid of your ego and focus on God. When you're there and you can't follow this or that, you have to sacrifice the comfort of "understanding" or "following the book" and you have to go with the flow which is not determined by you but by Someone else. It forces the necessary abstraction onto you, pulls you out of your usual rut and helps bring your attention to higher things.

[Deb]

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1621206' date='Aug 8 2008, 07:12 AM']1. The Church says so.
2. Latin makes you think. It helps you get rid of your ego and focus on God. When you're there and you can't follow this or that, you have to sacrifice the comfort of "understanding" or "following the book" and you have to go with the flow which is not determined by you but by Someone else. It forces the necessary abstraction onto you, pulls you out of your usual rut and helps bring your attention to higher things.[/quote]


That is what the Latin Mass does for you. Latin Mass for those who have never been to one may have them writing their grocery list in their head. Some may figure if they can't understand, they won't even try. I don't disagree with your love of Latin but, I do with your assuming all will react as you do to it.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Deb' post='1621210' date='Aug 8 2008, 05:53 AM']That is what the Latin Mass does for you. Latin Mass for those who have never been to one may have them writing their grocery list in their head. Some may figure if they can't understand, they won't even try. I don't disagree with your love of Latin but, I do with your assuming all will react as you do to it.[/quote]

There is more to the Mass than just the words. Even in the "mother tongue," we use a foreign language and nobody makes a stink about the Kyrie. That is Greek.

To say that we can't comprehend Latin is naive and a bit childish. To assume that people will be writing "Grocery lists" is not giving much credit to your fellow man and to be quite honest is a little uncharitable.

I have lived all over the world. I have never seen anyone react adversely to Latin used in the Mass. And to say that I seek out Latin Masses is true, but I have just stumbled upon Latin Masses as well, especially while I was in Israel, and again while I was in London. That's right, London.

So, please don't generalize like that, it isn't a valid argument to say that people just won't understand. It has been my experience that people do understand. That is one of the great things about being human, we can reason and we live on more than just instinct. We can and do learn.

So, do a little looking around and you'll see that the use of Latin isn't so far fetched. Plus, you should get used to the idea that you'll be hearing more of it, as Summorum Pontificorum is being implemented, Latin the Ordinary form will be used more and more. The writing is on the wall....it makes understanding the nuances of the Extraordinary form easier to grasp.....

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1620610' date='Aug 7 2008, 07:02 PM']And, again, I find it hard to swallow that we are much better off now than we have been before...again...if it wasn't messed up...why "fix" it. The polls show even the drastic drop in Mass attendance. I do blame the vernacular, because it changed the whole face of the Mass...and the way we Worship the Almighty God. With Latin, there was no room for mis-interpretation, or adding personal changes, and just the whole ho-hum attitude of Catholics toward the Mass...

..we are the 25% who have a grasp on what it all means....and although I am not dis-agreeing with everything you have pointed out....I have submitted these points to answer the topics question.[/quote]

Well, I think we all agree that Latin should be encouraged and I don't think any of us are under the false impression that Vatican II discourged the use of Latin. I'm sure the change to Novus Ordo discouraged some people from attending Mass, but it clearly isn't the only reason. The Catholic Church isn't working in a vaccuum from the rest of society.

Another very important factor to consider is [i]Humanae Vitae[/i] because it marks the moment when a large number of American Catholics publicly broke from obedience to the Church to follow their own standard of sexual morality. Since then, lay Catholics have no longer been able to rely on a community that valued obedience at all costs, and disobedience on one doctrine or another has become acceptable (if not expected, because disobedience is how today's society expresses individuality and freedom).

Maybe Mass in the vernacular has encouraged these attitudes more than I give it credit for. It's impossible to know for sure just because so many other things changed during the same time period.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1621244' date='Aug 8 2008, 07:49 AM']Well, I think we all agree that Latin should be encouraged and I don't think any of us are under the false impression that Vatican II discourged the use of Latin. I'm sure the change to Novus Ordo discouraged some people from attending Mass, but it clearly isn't the only reason. The Catholic Church isn't working in a vaccuum from the rest of society.

Another very important factor to consider is [i]Humanae Vitae[/i] because it marks the moment when a large number of American Catholics publicly broke from obedience to the Church to follow their own standard of sexual morality. Since then, lay Catholics have no longer been able to rely on a community that valued obedience at all costs, and disobedience on one doctrine or another has become acceptable (if not expected, because disobedience is how today's society expresses individuality and freedom).

Maybe Mass in the vernacular has encouraged these attitudes more than I give it credit for. It's impossible to know for sure just because so many other things changed during the same time period.[/quote]

You are right, we should agree that Latin should be encouraged, mainly because it is the will of the Church to do so. Not opinion, fact. That is for those that think that I am just passing my personal thoughts along. On that, I am not.

And the move to the Novus Ordo had very little to do with the mini-exodus of the 1960s. Incidentally, the Church has grown significantly since the 1960's, so that argument won't really hold water either. What triggered the mini-exodus was, quite simply, an era of social, theological, and moral dissent.

I think that LF makes a valid point about Humanae Vitae, but seriously, I don't even think that the dissent of Humanae Vitae is a contributing factor. Since the changes of the 1960s, the Church has continued to grow and is still strong.

However, not much of this has to do with the use of Latin in the Mass. As I have shown, the use of Latin is to be preserved. Latin was never to be completely eliminated. When it comes to the Liturgy, the lack of catechesis is the most stifling thing that is out there. If the priests and bishops would simply do what the Church asks (from a universal point of view....remember, we are Catholics in America NOT American Catholics...a subtle distinction, I know, but an important one.), then Latin wouldn't seem so daunting. Not that it is anyways. Really, the language isn't all that hard to understand.

[LouisvilleFan]

How has the Church grown? Catholics are still about 25% of the American population today, virtually unchanged over the past 50 years. Hispanic immigration has provided just enough numbers to make up for the exodus of European Catholics, and even many of them are leaving the faith. I think we are merely holding our own overall... neither growing nor shrinking.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1621260' date='Aug 8 2008, 08:12 AM']How has the Church grown? Catholics are still about 25% of the American population today, virtually unchanged over the past 50 years. Hispanic immigration has provided just enough numbers to make up for the exodus of European Catholics, and even many of them are leaving the faith. I think we are merely holding our own overall... neither growing nor shrinking.[/quote]

[quote]The number of Catholics in the world is increasing, if not by much: they were 1.31 billion in 2006, an increase of 1.4% compared to the 1.15 billion in 2005. And there is a continuation of the trend that since 2000 has seen an increase in the number of priests, both diocesan and religious, who went from 406,411 in 2005 to 407,262 in 2006, an overall change of 0.21%. These are some of the figures contained in the Annuario Pontificio for 2008, presented this morning by the pope.

Observing the presence of Catholics in relation to the number of the inhabitants of the various continents, it can be noted that Catholics make up 14% of the population of the population of the Americas, while the Americas have 49.8% of Catholics in the world. Catholics make up just a slightly smaller percentage of Europe's population, but its importance in the Catholic world is clearly lower than that of the American countries (25%). The proportion of Catholics in Asia is at 10.5%, lower than the continent's percentage of the world population, which is at around 61%.

But the trend of the number of priests present in Asia is on the rise. Observing the distribution of priests by region, in fact, one can observe a decline in the presence of priests in Europe and America compared to Africa and Asia. In terms of percentage, in fact, while in 2000 the overall number of priests working in Europe and the Americas represented 81% of the total, in 2006 they dropped to 78%. The most striking positive variation is seen in Africa, where the proportion of priests in 2006 stood at around 8% of the worldwide total. In Asia, too, the number of priests moved higher, passing from 43,566 in 2000 to 51,281 in 2006.

There has also been growth in the number of those preparing for the priesthood. There are 115,480 students of philosophy and theology in the diocesan or religious seminaries, an increase of 0.9% compared to the previous year; 24,034 are in Africa, 37,150 in the Americas, 30,702 in Asia, 22,618 in Europe, and 976 in Oceania. (VIS; 29 Feb 2008)[/quote]

At the death of Pope Paul VI in 1978, there were approximately 683 million Catholics worldwide. Now, I am not a fan of throwing out a bunch of stats, as previously stated, but honestly, the Church is growing and has not slowed down since the 1960s.

Let's not get off track though...this is about the use of Latin in the Mass, not how many Catholics are or are not in the world.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1621273' date='Aug 8 2008, 11:36 AM']At the death of Pope Paul VI in 1978, there were approximately 683 million Catholics worldwide. Now, I am not a fan of throwing out a bunch of stats, as previously stated, but honestly, the Church is growing and has not slowed down since the 1960s.

Let's not get off track though...this is about the use of Latin in the Mass, not how many Catholics are or are not in the world.[/quote]

Pro-creation is wonderful, but we need to grow through evangelism and conversion.

With [url="http://www.infoplease.com/year/1978.html#world"]4.302 billion[/url] people in the world in 1978, it was 15.9% Catholic then. Today there are about [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates"]6.7 billion[/url] people and 1.1 billion Catholics, or 16.4%.

Edited August 8, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Cam42]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1621307' date='Aug 8 2008, 09:45 AM']Pro-creation is wonderful, but we need to grow through evangelism and conversion.

With [url="http://www.infoplease.com/year/1978.html#world"]4.302 billion[/url] people in the world in 1978, it was 15.9% Catholic then. Today there are about [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates"]6.7 billion[/url] people and 1.1 billion Catholics, or 16.4%.[/quote]

Still growth....again, what does this have to do with the use of Latin in the Liturgy? Unless you want to make the case that as a universal binder, it would be a good thing for the 1.1 billion Catholics.....

And btw, if we properly catechize those who are attending Mass, won't they be able to spread that seed even moreso and do the evangelization that you are asking? I think so.

By the way, properly speaking we should only evangelize those who are not Christian, we should catechize those who are.....but I am sure that is what you were getting at.....correct?