Latin is a tough sell now that we've lived with an all-vernacular liturgy for several decades. However, the Vatican II generation is passing (like all generations at some point), and those replacing them did not grow up within the reforms. Instead, since they are told about the reforms mainly by the previous generation, which "knows" them through experience, the new generation has to read the original documents. Only then, with horror, perhaps, do they discover the chasm between Vatican II and its "Spirit." Take carpeting, for example. I am sure the Spirit of Vatican II says it makes church more comfortable and welcoming, but, as CCWatershed recently pointed out, it destroys active participation in regard to congregational singing. Our discussion of Latin is a prime example. Vatican II says Gregorian chant has primacy of place, and that Latin should remain in place, and yet the abandonment of Latin renders the retention of chant impossible. The Spirit of Vatican II tried to kill its own soul. (I tried to avoid hyperbole, but, oh, well...)

"Only then, with horror, perhaps, do they discover the chasm between Vatican II and its "Spirit." "

Keep that "perhaps" in mind. You might be horrified by how many young people are not horrified.

I think a big part of the problem is seminary formation. There was a time when priests were taught Latin, along with singing chant, and just music in general.

Yes, but, fortunately, some seminarians are still being taught Latin and chant. An impressive demonstration is this group of seminarians on pilgrimage in Italy who filled a small mountain chapel and sang Vespers in the traditional rite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srz62Gj5h_s

Of course, this is the exception rather than the rule, but it is reassuring to know that somewhere in some corner of the world our ancient liturgical customs and traditional faith are being handed down to a new generation of priests which was the mission of a certain courageous and zealous French missionary archbishop.

Now it goes without saying that I favor this being done in an approved setting by an order with full ecclesiastical approval. Nevertheless I think we can all agree that most, if not all of the approved traditional orders either spring from or drew much of their inspiration from the work of the French missionary archbishop in question.

It can be said in a real way that most if not all of the good news in the Church in regards to the preservation of the previous tradition is inspired to a very large degree by that noble French prelate.

Let us not forget that Pope Benedict XVI (and most recently, Cardinal Sarah) made clear that Sacrosanctum Concilium is "the magna carta" of all liturgical celebrations. As Josef Cardinal Ratzinger said in his magnificent speech to the Ecclesia Dei pilgrims in Rome in 1998, the "essential criteria" of the Constitution on the Liturgy need to be followed by all, among which are ad orientem celebrations of the liturgy as well as the mandate that the faithful "say or sing in Latin those parts" that pertain to them. It also states in SC that parish celebrations of Sunday Vespers should be revived.

So, while certainly not a member of the Society represented in this video, I cannot fail to point out that they are in the forefront of the effort to carry out what was called for in SC and re-emphasized by Cardinals Ratzinger and Sarah.

It's the irony of ironies that circumstances have us looking to this particular order for a practical model of implementing Vatican II's call for the renewal of the liturgy.

In fact, I'm going to tiptoe out on a limb to say I believe that the founders of the original Liturgical Movement would have strongly endorsed what is shown in this video.

A beautiful discussion of the style of liturgical Latin developing ideas from Christine Mohrmann is in The Genius of the Roman Rite: Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspectives on Catholic Liturgy by Uwe Michael Lang. I commented on his article there in an editorial in Sacred Music, c37, 2 (Summer 2010).

This is not a universal argument, but let me take a shot on why I prefer the mass in Latin.

Fundamentally, it reminds me that the mass is not a lecture or seminar or bible study but an action - an action not (primarily) of the community present in the church, but of Christ as head of the Church. More than this, it is an action that I enter into, not one that is made by the priest or the people. As such, it is not necessary for me to "understand" every syllable or every word. The understanding necessary for participation is not on the level of rational cognition so much as the heart.

Looked at from the other way round, having every syllable of every word relayed to me at full volume not only does not lead to full comprehension, but actually inhibits it by forcing me work almost exclusively on the rational, cognitive level. There's usually no where to escape from the priest's voice!

Having everything in the vernacular gives the impression that the mass is comprehensible since everything is so explicit, so "out loud" - there's little room left for subtlety, mystery, and, dare I say, contemplation. Is this the way people in love communicate with one another?

A similar argument could be made for the silent canon. After going to mass a few dozen times, most people can "get" what's going on in the eucharistic prayer without it having every word be broadcast to them over and over.

I think it's true to say that the modern Roman rite is the only one in history that consists of one hour of one person talking almost non-stop, and in the vernacular. Has anyone else worshipped in this way in history, or did we finally discover the ideal way to worship God? Is it now the only way?

But, living with Latin every week would allow for that immediate shift, rather than an over-focus on translating.

The Cathedrals in Lyon and Avila used their respective vernacular tongues, and made it virtually impossible to participate in prayers at each mass,

Why don't you just learn French and Spanish, then? They're not that hard.

Would it be fair to say that 'liturgical Latin' might be likened unto a 'Cranmerian Latin'?

Adam, I hope you'll get to the point where you're not mentally translating the Latin text, but simply singing it with intent as an utterance which happens to be in Latin.

I remember my first time attending the Tridentine Mass.. I didn't like it and thought I would never go back. It seemed unnecessarily confusing and whatnot.

Then by Tuesday I was wishing there was a daily TLM in my area.

By Thursday I began getting irritated that Sunday wasn't here yet.

2pm on Sunday afternoon became my favorite time of the week.

When I became the music director it was even better.

Then I decided I wanted to... you know... have money to live and eat and have peace of mind...

So I moved to another country and worked in various places with varying levels of having beauty as part of my Sunday. None compared to the 2pm TLM until I ended up at a very ROTR sort of place. Here, even only with the OF celebrated in English with plenty of Latin music, I've found the solace and beauty that I used to find at 2pm on Sunday afternoons.

Latin is not a choice or a preference... it's a tradition and lifestye.

(The same goes for reading Shakespeare or Cranmer or Coverdale.)

Point taken, johnmann.

My reasons also had to do with the way the mass is celebrated, the fact that typically everything is amplified, etc., so it can't be reduced simply to the language. In fact, I'm about 80% there if the mass is sung as much as possible, done ad orientem, with little or no amplification, reagrdless of language. I used to go to a mass in Vietnamese with many of these features and found it an oasis from the non-stop talking at the typical mass in English.

My experience of Latin Mass has been ALL ABOUT THE WORDS.

Why, yes, grasshopper. The Mass has always been about the words. You are growing in knowledge. There are those that think that they MUST have music, not matter how bad it is...but not when it takes away from the words or becomes more important than the words.

Chant has pride of place not due to some exalted reason, but because the words come first. Always.

I think the Latin-vs.-vernacular question is a very important one, and I see merit in many of the (serious) responses given here, even as they diverge.

One important element is the musical tradition that has developed in most of the Catholic Church in the last 50 years: the Ordinary in the vernacular, and the replacement of Propers with hymns. While these aren't my preferences (and I've had the good fortune to work at parishes that generously allowed Latin in the NO Mass), sometimes I think that too much Latin, or Latin implemented too fast in a place that hasn't had any for decades, may turn people away. Two quick instances:

1. I used to work as the music minister at an Ivy League campus ministry. I had a handful of students approach me over the years, and ask sincerely, "Why can't we do traditional Church music? You know, like 'Eagle's Wings'?" For how many millions of American Catholics does "Eagle's Wings" and its ilk constitute "traditional" church music, and just how far an off-putting leap is it from Joncas to Palestrina?

2. I recently interviewed for a music position in a wealthy suburban midwestern parish with quite a good volunteer choir of three dozen voices. My experience is with chant, propers, and motets, as I understand the liturgy to be constructed, and for which I advocated in my interview; the pastor prefers hymns and hymn arrangements. "Your musical preferences don't match ours," he said, in what is a true statement but one which suggests very little interest in the history or traditions of the liturgy: Latin, musical, or otherwise.

Julie,

Please excuse the typographical anomaly.

BEST children's show ever (the original series, that is)

I grew up on the original books, which were index-card-sized. My boys have had access to these at my parents' house. In fairness, I think the books were much better than the television programme.

In any event, since I'm responsible for this sidebar, may I try to come back to the original topic? Here goes:

In the event of multi-lingual geographical areas, how does one make the decision about whose vernacular to use, without creating dissent in the parish?

God bless,

Chris
0

When I have attended Mass in Latin, or partly in Latin, I generally spend the entire time either mentally translating (when I already know the text) or trying very hard to remember enough Latin (when I don't know it already) or follow along in the program (if the translation is given).

My experience of Latin Mass has been ALL ABOUT THE WORDS.

I felt the same way for quite a while with the EF. Then I got comfortable with it and I learned to just pray, instead of focusing on every single word. I barely even look at my missal now, beyond the readings.

This tennis match is tiresome.
The shibboleth of using "OEW" as a vernacular whipping colt is irrelevant to the discussion. The shibboleth of "Latin Propers" being rendered at pre-conciliar St. Normal's parishes is as faulted a presumption as condemning OEW by guilt through association. Everyone of us here presumably has some measure of defining contemporary practice in sacred music used for worship, so choose wisely. If you program Propers or Opt.4's in English (or another vernacular) and then choose to reinforce those with an obvious, beautiful resonant Latin motet, then have at it. This MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY will never, ever catch on in worldwide RCCatholicism. If you dream otherwise, all good graces and providence I pray come your way.

the most important reason to retain Latin is that language carries culture.

And culture carries language! In this case, as Dr. Mahrt points out, Latin is carried by centuries of culture. OEW is at least scriptural, if schlocky (as was much pre-conciliar Latin music, I might add). It's the abandonment of Latin and thus the music that grew up with the liturgy that is so frustrating. Efforts to translate into the vernacular that body of music are valiant, and increasingly more successful, but there is no good reason, though obvious and understandable resistance, to the implementation of Latin music at church.

Still, the Church envisions at least partial Latin in an entirely spoken Mass.

"Can't imagine what G K Chesterton would say about these people, but it would not be kind."

Not that they'd particularly care.

1 Corinthios 14:19:

sed in ecclesia volo quinque verba sensu meo loqui, ut et alios instruam, quam decem milia verborum in lingua.

In case you weren't able to comprehend:

but in the church I would rather speak five words with my mind, so as to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

in lege scriptum est quoniam in aliis linguis et labiis aliis loquar populo huic et nec sic exaudient me dicit Dominus

1Cor 14:21

In the law it is written: In other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people: and neither so will they hear me, saith the Lord.

other evidence tells us that the Last Supper would have been prayed in Hebrew, not Aramaic

What evidence? Though I'm not sure it matters. He spoke in a language understood by all. If everyone knew Latin, we wouldn't be having this debate.

My uninformed guess would be that he "gave thanks" in Hebrew but that the words of consecration were in common Aramaic. Then it was translated into common Greek. Then into Latin for the benefit of the non-Greek West. So for the first few hundred years, comprehension was important. That Tradition of comprehension was then lost until Vatican II.

Of course, one could argue that the Church developed something better than comprehension.

Which three languages were nailed to the cross?

Most (all?) of the words in the Gospels that are said to be "Hebrew" are actually Aramaic words. And the three vernaculars of the time in that area were Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. You may draw your own conclusions about what that might suggest about the languages on the roodsign.

I don't think there's any reason why the words of consecration should have been in Aramaic

Because that is the language that they spoke.

because it wasn't the language of the worship of the Jews.

The words of institution are not a part of the Jewish worship tradition. They are something wholly new.


-----

Both comprehension and tradition are important.

The sane, sensible thing to do, which seems to have been supported by most of the pre-conciliar thinkers, and by the council documents, would have been a retention of most Latin, along with a renewed effort to educate both clergy and lay people in Latin, and also some use of the vernacular - especially in mission lands.

Unfortunately the post-Conciliar era has not been notable for its sanity or sensibility.