These two selection stood out to me as especially strong arguments (emphasis added):

Fr. Spataro: "a near-universal datum of religious phenomenology is that religion relies on the use of a sacred language distinct from everyday language"

From the weekly of the Franciscans of the Immaculate: “One of the most frequent objections made to the spread of the liturgy in Latin is the low level of knowledge of the Latin language among the faithful and the clergy. Yet this objection easily falls if one understands that in the liturgy there is a communication that transcends language and appeals to the participants’ sense of the sacred. Indeed the liturgy is the locus of communication with the supernatural, of our encounter, through the Immaculate, with Christ suffering. It is a meeting with guardian angels and saints. A meeting in heaven. Rather than being a Latinist, what counts to participate in the traditional liturgy is our soul’s disposition to become sanctified.”

"As an international traveller in 2011, it was frustrating not being able to pray the parts of the mass proper to me, even though I knew where we were up to.". As a new convert, I felt this way in AMERICA, trying to sing the various jingles, oops, responses by ear.

The ordinary of the mass should be in Latin

fix'd

Although I studied Greek in school, in my middle age I'm beginning to appreciate Latin. A priest once told me they were dead languages and banned the Kyrie. It was heart breaking, but the parish mentality is drive-thru service, shave every last second off so folks can get back to their sofas. Gregorian chant upsets some people fervently if it occurs during a mass, I discovered. I learned what it is like to be hated and loathed by the parish staff. Looking back it seems so childish. I don't get why haters have to hate at church, in the sacristy, etc.

I was trying to reintroduce the sequence when we have them, Easter, Pentecost, etc. No one was ready to confront the sequence, so I conspired with the pastor to chant it. Even though there was that backlash, the Cantors saw to it that they learned the English. And that has been successful in having the sequence ever since. Some people, though. They fear the stigma of backwardness, as if having a smidge of Latin is going back to the bad ole days or something!

I am not so sure those who don't like Latin see it as "backwardness." It just isn't their spoken language and they don't understand it. The only "backwardness" I would think they object to, would be the parts of the EF mass that even a church council thought needed reforming. Certainly, they don't want those practices back, but that is not necessarily a language issue.

I haven't encountered that to any extreme. The inability to understand the language I have encountered. I can't argue with the mindset that liturgy should be in the language of the people. It should be for maximum understanding. That doesn't mean to junk Latin, but use it to complement the vernacular, not replace it.

What I have run into, and tend to believe myself, is that some of the cultural affectations that went with the pre-Vatican II mass don't make sense today. For example, why should women cover their heads and resemble veiled Muslims? Are they terrorists? Well, yes some of those women I have met could qualify. LOL. Granted, we have one of St. Paul's rants on head coverings, but the application has been interesting. In some eastern places, the women don't cover their heads, but are on opposite sides of the church from men. In the west, women covered their heads, but sat with men. The whole thing in either case is a bit nutty in this century.

The Latin mass was/is excessively clericalized. To this someone always says, but the people could do this and this and this. Perhaps they could, but they didn't. The choirs, cantors and priests sang and the people listened. That's OK sometimes, but not all the time. My memories of those masses was a church full of people saying rosaries while the priests and functionaries performed the mass in front. Not a good thing. The people do need to participate, but I will agree those forms of participation in the OF mass have gotten a bit out of control.

How are Rogation Days in any way relevant in a non-agricultural society? Would anyone today even care what they once were? It wasn't the mass that was so bad it needed changing, but the cultural behaviors that went along with it. No, I don't want those back. I have found some of the Latin "haters" object more to the culture of the old mass than to Latin. I use Latin judiciously today and don't get those extreme reactions to the language. As melo-sage of the west says, ymmv, but what I have said is true in my place if not yours.

It's coming around.

I don't want to turn this thread into an NPM thread, but to reference a discussion we've had here before: in 2003, when I went to my first NPM convention, I remember heated rhetoric coming from speakers who literally said "And now, people are talking about putting Latin back into the mass? NEVER!!! NEVER should we allow Vatican II to be undone. NEVER should we let them try to take us backwards 40 years!"

Contrast that with the mass at the last convention in DC in 2013: Ubi Caritas, in latin, during the offertory; latin Agnus Dei. Chanted dialogues in English.

If NPM represents most American parishes, and I think they do, things have moved in the last 10 years.

I think those arguments are starting to die.

Even before joining CMAA in 07 I always had a special gratitude for the second Sunday of Easter as it provided obvious rationales to program chants (albeit metered and vernacular) at the three processionals. But that sort of reasoning was temporal and to some extent, counterproductive. I'd always programmed chant (in Latin/English/Greek) as well as Latin motets virtually all of my career as standard operating procedure. I simply made sense to do so as the choral treasury begins there!
After CMAA, and a fuller understanding of "why" to program more than two of 18 chant Masses, processional propers, etc. led me to wonder "how" to integrate the venerable musics as integral elements on a systematic and ongoing basis? This is particuarly challenging if one is not sure where the pastor and all vicars "fall" on the appreciation scale of such efforts. Therefore, one has to be prepared to criticially weave the finer threads into the OF environment in order for folks to regard it as "natural."
Back to yesterday- After chanting the SEP Introit, the entrance was literally "O filii..." with the congregation joining in the antiphon triple alleluia only. The choir sang the verses from the PBC in Latin. After an asperges, the ICEL Glory with ison was chanted, as was the "O filii" as the Gospel acclamation.
At the Offertory, the same chant was taken up again, but with the English verses (all nine) which, of course, bolsters the Thomas/faith without seeing blessing.
We sang RR's Simple CG yesterday as we didn't rehearse during the week, and that occurs as long as it takes to communicate the EMHC's and then provide them with the sacraments to move to the nave for distribution. Even though we now much prefer the more polyphonic character of RR's still new Choral Communio collection, the "orthodox" like homophony of the SCG uses the "freely chanted" verses in SATB, which again keeps the cultural ethos going.
In previous years, I would have alternated the Latin of Adoro te with the English, but I decided it would be more edifying to just use the Hopkins for the richness of prose alone. That way, I thought, there would at least be no implicit reason for folks processing to communicate to "tune out" because of the alternating languages serving as a possible distraction to the continuity of the text. We concluded singing for the day with the Dufay ARC in Latin, with those wonderful double "sharped" cadences emulative of the Landini.
Generally a handful of folks always come by the choir after Mass with some sort of positive remark, but quite a few more seemed almost effusive with their appreciation.
My point, and I do have one, is that the prescriptive use of Latin certainly does not have to always involve an "either/or" mindset in order to re-orient coherency to our OF Mass culture.

My pastor has effectively banned Latin from the Mass at our parish.

My pastor has done pretty much the same, with one exception; We are allowed to sing Latin during Communion. He claims that the congregation must be able to participate in singing Entrance, Offertory, and recessional hymns, thus only English is appropriate.

So I have used the opportunity afforded to me to sing Latin hymns during Communion. We sang Adoramus Te, Christe (Dubois) and O Bone Jesu (Ingegneri) during Lent. And now in the Easter season, we have sung the Regina Caeli. I'm planning to sing Veni Creator Spiritus for Pentecost.

At some point, I might even sing the Salve Regina as a recessional just to see what happens.

But in my present situation, I'll be fighting the battle for sung English propers (where it is easier to compromise) before I try to overcome my pastor's deep-seated opposition to Latin.

My pastor has done pretty much the same, with one exception; We are allowed to sing Latin during Communion. He claims that the congregation must be able to participate in singing Entrance, Offertory, and recessional hymns, thus only English is appropriate.

Whenever I hear things like this, I always want to ask where they find these rules and how they agree with the council's talk of Latin in the liturgy, and even the GIRM where one of the 4 options is the chant from the roman gradual (Latin) and another is from the simplex (Latin).

It just seems so arbatrary.

Chris, Pius X and XII are dead - although I think Pius XII deserves canonization. In any event, the whole world has changed since their time. We have bigger issues than trying to fight old battles and have good old-fashioned EF anathema tosses and document hurls. I suspect both popes would be pulling their hair out if they lived today.

Charles,

Pius XII may be canonized eventually. Thomas More and Joan of Arc had to wait their turn, so perhaps this holy Pope's time isn't just now?

Of course I know they're both dead, but I fail to see how that renders their opinions worthless. More importantly, I fail to see how the fact that each one is dead renders his teaching obsolete.

What "old" battles did you have in mind?

As to document hurls, I encourage you to try to have this experience: loudly proclaim at an NPM conference or at the USCCB website that Environment and Art in Catholic Worship does not now have, nor never had binding authority on anyone.

I don't share your opinion that both popes would be tearing out their hair. I think we might see public processions in reparation for the evils of our time, though.

Cheers,

Chris

Personally, I'm not 100% convinced on veiling.
But I support many of my friends who make this devotional choice.

Charles, you mention the mantillas so often. What's your beef? Are surrounded by a cadre of lace-laden grim reapers in your nightmares or something? Of all the minor things with which to take issue. Real problems exist within circles of traditionally-minded Catholics, as they are populated with real fallen human beings like you and me.

Three feet of lace ain't a big deal.

CharlesW 3:05PM Thanks
Posts: 4,563
Chris, Pius X and XII are dead - although I think Pius XII deserves canonization. In any event, the whole world has changed since their time. We have bigger issues than trying to fight old battles and have good old-fashioned EF anathema tosses and document hurls. I suspect both popes would be pulling their hair out if they lived today.

The whole world has changed. Truth does not change, dogma does not change and the Church is forever. There are no 'old battles'. Anathema is a scary reality and it also still exists. Excommunication would be the action of popes who see what is going on today; they are the popes who have ba*** and would have used them for the RIGHT reason.

After all, it was the Vatican Council's intent to make the Church connect to a greater degree with the modern world. Instead there has been much fumbling and misdirection as a result of changes that were intended to do the opposite. The Church needs to come to some sort of terms with the modern world, and speak to the world in ways that make a difference. It's not there, yet. I get the feeling we in the Church are fiddling with peripherals while the structure burns. Just my two cents and ymmv.

No, it was not VII's intent to make the Church connect with the modern world. It was the intention of a misled few that had significant positions on the council. And yes, as a result, there has been much fumbling and misdirection as a result of changes that were intended to do the opposite.

I totally disagree. The Church does NOT need to come to some sort of terms with the modern world. It spoke to the world in a way that made all the difference throughout all of history. Now it says nothing because it stands for everything.

Once the Church gets its head screwed back on the right way, look out world.

I agree, MACW, completely.

I see this in terms of reverent and sacred liturgy first, beautiful and sacred music second, and language third or somewhere lower on the list.

kenstb

That is a very beautiful story. Thank you. Sometimes it is just those kind of words that break through all the hopelessness of our time and shed a ray of light to walk toward.

I'm sick to death of this silly notion that full and active participation means that the congregation should always be doing something, which generally equates to them being forced to sing everything.

The inability to understand the language I have encountered. I can't argue with the mindset that liturgy should be in the language of the people. It should be for maximum understanding.

That "inability to understand" cannot possibly apply to the Ordinary parts, translations of which we've been sing/saying for nigh unto 50 years, Right?

As to "maximum understanding"--that's pragmatism. Do people "maximally understand" the circle of 5ths while reveling in the beauty of Bach? Or "maximally understand" the relationship of text to music in the Brahms Requiem? Or Britten's?

Readings, orations, yes. Sermons, (such as they are), yes.

But as That Guy once said: God's ways are not yours [to understand].

What I have run into, and tend to believe myself, is that some of the cultural affectations that went with the pre-Vatican II mass don't make sense today....Granted, we have one of St. Paul's rants on head coverings, but the application has been interesting. In some eastern places, the women don't cover their heads, but are on opposite sides of the church from men. In the west, women covered their heads, but sat with men. The whole thing in either case is a bit nutty in this century.

Ah, we have PROGRESS!!

You have demonstrated (thanks!) that the differentiation between women and men is ancient and cross-cultural, and have also stated (in effect) that such distinctions are not needed "today." Frankly, that is Sesame Street-think. And do you really think that Paul was a "ranter" or do you use that pejorative to establish your credibility?

You have demonstrated (thanks!) that the differentiation between women and men is ancient and cross-cultural, and have also stated (in effect) that such distinctions are not needed "today." Frankly, that is Sesame Street-think. And do you really think that Paul was a "ranter" or do you use that pejorative to establish your credibility?

The notion that women should have to cover their heads in church today is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with denying differences between men and women.

It was something that got started at a certain point in history for reasons that made sense at that time in history. Today, when we think of modesty, we don't think of women covering their heads (as they did then); we think of women not wearing skirts with slits up to their hips and not wearing low cut shirts.

It's a different world. By your logic (it seems) the Pope should not use a computer or a cell phone nor use twitter - after all, earlier and venerable predecessors did not use such things.

"How are Rogation Days in any way relevant in a non-agricultural society? " Because if we don't have crops, we don't eat. And if God willed it, they could all fail. The fact that most of us aren't involved in producing that harvest means that it's even more important to connect with it spiritually.

Oh come now. Which composer would you prefer, Bach or Messiaen? I'll take Bach ANY DAY!

Since you put it that way - LOL. I do play some Bach but the highly formulaic music of that time period has never been among my favorites. Still, some of his pieces are lovely.

Where's your cite, Charles? Remember that I'm the guy who used to think that most Christian festivals were rip-offs of pagan ones. Not that I'm inclined to play that now, or here, but I could.
I have a healthy skepticism about industrial agriculture, but the actions of Monsaton et al don't invalidate my point that our physical sustenance deserves some spiritual attention. If most employees are pawns of multinational corporations, should we take the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker off the calendar? Or is that more reason to celebrate it?