Why Visceral Reaction Against Ecclesiastical Latin?
  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    Recently our Kenyan Priest introduced the Latin Novus Ordo into our parish along with Gregorian Chant, both with which I am delighted. Additionally, in my eighteen years as a Roman Catholic, I've come to recognize and refer to conciliar and papal documents by their Latin name.

    However, the more I share my delight with ecclesiastical Latin, the more I'm aware of a pervasive disdain for the Church's universal language. I'm puzzled and confused by this visceral rejection of anything Latin. What am I missing?
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    "This is 'murricuh. We speak 'murricun here, an' if you don't like it, you can go back to where you come from."

    I think it's a sort of xenophobia that drives the disdain towards Latin, in other words. Also, anti-intellectualism. "You know another language? Well I only know 'murricun, are you sayin' you gots more smarts than me??"
    Thanked by 3scholista Chris Allen hcmusicguy
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,956
    How was it introduced? Did he simply start using it at a regularly scheduled Mass? Or was a Mass added to the schedule to offer in this fashion?

    If the former rather than the latter, I could easily imagine that's the real focus of disdain.
  • Earl_GreyEarl_Grey
    Posts: 892
    I think it goes beyond being 'murrican. I had this debate with a parishioner once and I was "informed" that Latin was a dead language. However, this same person had no problem with adding more Spanish to the Mass (even though we have virtually no Hispanic families in our parish) because that would be "inclusive". Latin, on the other hand is "elitist". Basically, it seems to boil down to modernism.

    Perhaps if the Liturgy would return to Latin (at least for the ordinary) it would help purge the Church modernism error. How much longer on the current course before we eliminate Scripture because it is deemed too old and irrelevant?
    Thanked by 3scholista gregp SamuelDorlaque
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    People don't need arguments about these things. They just need the "scoff factor."

    Baltimore catechism? Scoff! That is so old fashioned and rigorist! Communion kneeling? Scoff! That is so clericalistic! Latin? Scoff! That is so pre-Vatican II and unenlightened and Dark Ages! Scoff, scoff, scoff!!!
    Thanked by 3scholista marajoy IanW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    I like Latin, and promote it for the beautiful music attached to it. But I have to recognize what it is in the Church. Friends who have studied classical Latin have nothing but disdain for Church Latin. It is like, they say, the 4th century equivalent of the most unlearned, backwards, low-class dialect of any language that could be found today. Do most know that? Probably not.

    I suspect much of the backlash against it is not that it is elitist (see above, it isn't), but that it is no longer spoken and few understand it. In the sense of not being spoken anymore outside of the Vatican - likely no longer the case with the new pope - it is a dead language.
  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    Liam,

    To answer your question, the Latin Mass in our parish is not instead of a regularly scheduled Mass, but rather an addition to. It is a once a month Saturday morning celebration.

    My observations are of a more general nature.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,696
    Charles, those who push classical Latin are just trying to push an anti-Marian agenda. Think of how the first two words of Hail Mary would sound!

    :)

    To go back to the original question, I find that the younger a person is the more likely they'll be open to a fully Latin Novus Ordo Mass.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    Matthewj, like I said, I like Latin. As an easterner, I have been through the change from Old Church Slavonic to English. God understands English perfectly, as He does every language that has existed. I don't think it is an issue with Him.
    Thanked by 1IanW
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    I think Earl_Grey is correct; this has nothing to do with the language itself, because people who have no problem with, and will actually insist on, Spanish, French, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Korean, (frequently in the same Mass) have vapors at the mention of Latin. I was told once by a nun that singing Gloria VIII 'prevented her from praying'.

    In my experience, most of these people are older, and they view Latin through the hermeneutic of rupture: Latin is the symbol of everything they hated about the pre-conciliar Church, and so they won't stand for it. In any way, shape, or form.

    (I've learned now. On rare occasions when we sing a Mass for the Ordinary Form, if people ask I tell them it's Italian.)
    Thanked by 3scholista Spriggo Earl_Grey
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    If and when I ever have "commented" prior to Mass about the pending use of Latin in a Mass, I deliberately use the term "our Mother-tongue." Latin, like it or not, is precisely that.
    Whether the seven Churches employed Aramaic, Greek, the precursor to Copt, whatever, the Church (again, like it or note) was instituded when Latin was the lingua franca. It is both coincidental and conventional that Latin served to embody the verbal expression of the liturgy AND serve the evolution of Western Civilization in such a manner that its status ought to be elevated beyond the snap shot perspective of just being a lingua franca. Latin is not a dead language. Whether or not its hearers remain intellectually inert is their problem.
    Thanked by 3gregp SamuelDorlaque ryand
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,161
    Yes, scholista, there definitely are Catholics who seem to resent Latin. Of course some people seem to resent references to foreign languages in general, but there may be other influences.

    There is the "populist" anti-intellectual streak in American culture. Also there is also a generation of Catholics who seem to take Latin as a symbol of things they consider burdensome about the Church. It reminds them of the universality and permanence of the Church, which we cannot remake according to our own likes.
    Thanked by 4scholista SamuelDorlaque ryand Earl_Grey
  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    Chonak,

    Your comments put words to my observations.
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    Melo, Chonak, yes and yes.
    Also, in my experience, it's the English-only speakers that have the biggest issue with Latin. Spanish, Italian, and French speakers, other Europeans, Africans and Asians who speak various languages don't seem to have such a stumbling block.

    I also think there's a holdover attachment to English from our colonial days. Most American intellectuals strike me as somewhat threatened by the lack of (classical or ecclesial) Latin in their studies.
  • ScottKChicago
    Posts: 349
    I don't think everyone who dislikes Latin liturgy considers it elitist or is anti-intellectual. Maybe some would like to continue praying with full understanding now rather than work through a learning curve. (Full disclosure: I'm an Anglican who appreciates our emphasis on praying in a language "understanded of the people"...There's a story about an Anglican Benedictine abbot being reminded of that dictum by a visitor to his community's praying of the Office in Latin...his response was "We understand Latin.")
    Thanked by 2SamuelDorlaque chonak
  • SamuelDorlaque
    Posts: 318
    I find it ironic that most of the "complaints" come from people my age. Young people have commented about "how sweet it was" at World Youth Day that people from all over the world could pray together in the same language, the language of the Church. It is very interesting that the students from the Madeleine Choir School, who receive intense training in that "dead language" as a part of their elementary school curriculum, are going on to win scholarships from some of the finest universities in the country. For some strange reason they exhibit higher verbal and reading skills than the average American high school population. The civilized western world owes a debt that can't be repaid to the Latin language and the Latin Church.
    Thanked by 1Earl_Grey
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    The rest of the civilized west does not prize the English language or culture nearly as much as English native speakers do.

    I love the language of my birth, but I also recognize that the Latin Church is much, much broader than the anglophone countries.

    If there was to be a single replacement for Latin as the liturgical language of the Latin Church, it surely wouldn't be English. I don't know why some pretend otherwise- basic ethnocentrism?
    Thanked by 2chonak CHGiffen
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    People fear the unfamiliar. If you introduce Latin incrementally you'll find less resistance. Use the missal chants for the ordinary then introduce the Latin chants of the same tone.
  • Daphne_Point
    Posts: 2
    No, the incremental 'salami' approach to change always generates suspicion because people start to fear where it is heading. Best to lay out your stall straight away and the hit them with a sledge hammer.
    Thanked by 1SkirpR
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    MaryAnn, you have touched on a central issue, I think - liturgical languages. One is either for them, or considers them irrelevant. Granted, I am from an eastern mindset that thinks liturgy should be in the language of the people. I have no problem with monasteries or institutions where all involved understand the liturgical language. In a parish church, the situation is different.

    My own preference, would be for western churches to keep the high/low mass distinction, and do high mass in Latin, with vernacular for the low mass. I realize that in some quarters, there is much anguish and mantilla chewing over mass changes since VII. I suspect things have gone so far in the other direction in most places, that going back to earlier forms and practices will not happen.
    Thanked by 3Adam Wood CHGiffen Blaise
  • WendiWendi
    Posts: 638
    GregP has the right of it. Older generations have a visceral dislike of Latin because it reminds them of all of the negative aspects of the pre-conciliar church.

    This is not speculation on my part, but evidence gathered when I asked people WHY they didn't like to hear Latin at Mass.

    I got replies that had a lot to do with ruler wielding nuns, and distant priests and the feeling of being a spectator at Mass. Like it or not, many people of that generation were not told the "why" of anything. They were just told "this is what we do because we're Catholic" end of story.

    People don't like feeling left out and they don't like feeling stupid. Being taught how to say the Latin, but not what it meant was the norm for a lot of people who were children in the 50's. They seem to be the ones most resistant to the re-introduction of Latin and chant in the Liturgy. (Although I have noticed that some are ok with the chant...if it's in English.)

    It's not elitism. It's not about it being a "foreign language". One woman in my parish who "doesn't like all the Latin" speaks four languages fluently, including Mandarin Chinese.

    Young people don't have all the emotional baggage that the older ones do. They can just appreciate the beauty. Which is why they don't tend to be as resistant as a group.

    As for the slow introduction...I think that is a better method, provided that you are honest about where you intend to end up, and that you provided opportunity for your congregation to learn...outside the Mass.

    Our parish priest arranged for someone to come in and offer workshops in chant and Latin at our parish...and it's open to everyone free of charge. That is a good method in my humble opinion. Make it accessible to everyone, and go slowly...but go forward.

    As usual...YMMV.
    Thanked by 4Spriggo CHGiffen RPBurke Chris Allen
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Anyone else ever had this experience?

    The parish I grew up in had a large Spanish-speaking population. There was a regular Sunday Mass in Spanish, all large feast-day liturgies bilingual, and some of the more popular bi-lingual pieces got into regular rotation at the English speaking Masses.

    Of course, some of the older, passively-racist English-speakers were not happy about all the Spanish going on all the time.

    MORE THAN ONCE, while singing some traditional LATIN hymn or chant, I heard complaints about why we were doing the piece in Spanish.

    On the one hand, you want to correct the mistake. On the other hand, it's like the Sikhs-are-not-Muslims issue...
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen Kathy Aristotle Esguerra
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    I go to the Cathedral Parish of St Patrick's, Parramatta (near Sydney) and it is surprising to many that there are no averse reactions to the use of Latin. The majority of people who come to the parish are from non-English speaking backgrounds, and mostly speak a second language at home. To them, Latin is just another language.

    We've also sung pieces in German and French (though no Italian in recent times). The congregational singing is nearly all in English anyway, so they are quite happy to hear the choir sing something beautiful. We always have a translation and details about the piece in the liturgy guide.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,218
    Ummnnnhhhh.....after FIFTY YEARS of saying/singing the "Gloria" in English, it is madness to claim that "I don't understand the Latin." Same for any other Ordinary part of the Mass. One could understand the Ordinary if sung in French, Tagalog, or Urdu, if one paid attention to what they've been doing for the last 50 years.
    Thanked by 4chonak Earl_Grey CHGiffen Ben
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,696
    Except the English version of the Gloria wasn't the same as the Latin version of the Gloria for many of those years. Thankfully now that problem is fixed.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,369
    CharlesW -
    Concerning your remark above as to the street-language equivalency of 'Church Latin' -
    I 'learned' this many years ago from a variety of classical scholars and Latin-educated priests. Thus was I surprised several years ago upon being informed by another Latin scholar that that was a common error, and that the Latin we know in the liturgy would have been considered very educated (shall we say, 'elitist') and hardly comprehendable by the Roman 'man in the street'. Could you shed more light on this? I've really always felt that the view expressed by your friends is the correct one. Even if it is true, though, it is still 'music to OUR ears'.

  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    .
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    I know several people who would rate as classical Latin scholars, and was simply quoting their opinions. Who knows? I haven't studied the language in either form since high school Latin. I realize that church and secular Latin both have their advocates maintaining the superiority of their chosen form. I am no fan of liturgical languages, either in the Latin or my own Byzantine church. My only interest in Latin is the beautiful music attached to it.

    Interestingly, I have noticed languages tend to have their more "educated" forms and their less learned forms. The situation exists in English and Spanish, that I know of. Compare Oxford English to that of an American teenager - what a shocker! Why would Latin have been different?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    re: language snobs, cf. earlier comments in another thread regarding the plural of octopus.
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    All languages change constantly. Latin in 400 AD was different than Latin in 1 AD. Not 'better'; not 'worse'; just different.

    Thanked by 2Adam Wood CHGiffen
Add a Comment