Fifty years of vernacular liturgy, questions remain...
-
it's not the language but the concepts and content of the ancient Roman rite that are the most important to preserve and present since that is the foundation of the Roman Catholic faith and culture and perhaps even of Western Civilization itself.
Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. It isn't about Latin. We have far bigger problems than whether or not we use Latin. Latin is rather trivial in that context. -
Liturgical Latin isn't ultimately about being pretty. It's one, about universality and continuity. Having a standard, constant language in which all documents have their definitive form protects and promotes orthodoxy. On the other hand, regardless of prettiness, is sacrality, the sense in which something is set aside for worship. Just as we use exalted language in our vernacular prayers "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name." This is taken even further to the point that an entire language is set aside as something devoted to the worship of God, just as vestments, sacred vessels, priests, and religious are set apart for the worship of God and not for vulgar use. This became more and more apparent as vernacular languages developed.Thanked by 1Steve Collins
-
Having a standard, constant language in which all documents have their definitive form protects and promotes orthodoxy.
I'm skeptical. See GIRM 299 debates. -
Thanked by 1CHGiffen
-
I think we need to wake up and face the critical issues affecting the survival of the church in our own time. Steps the church took to address difficulties in another time may not be useful or relevant any more.
I don't understand the debates on liturgical Latin. What became liturgical Latin was the remnants of a once proud language which had deteriorated to street usage. When churchmen actually studied Latin, it may have been useful for communication among the clergy. Most probably couldn't even understand enough to do that these days. Latin is far from universal. That train left the station long ago. Restoring Latin and/or the Tridentine mass isn't going to save the church or the world. With everything from Islam, secularization, and indifference facing the church, thinking Latin is going to solve the above is like a doctor diagnosing cancer, and prescribing a tootsie roll pop as a cure. -
@Vilyanor
By the end of the millenium my wife was being employed, very much part time, to teach enough Latin to seminarians in their final year to pass the Latin exam required for their degree.As is laid down in Canon Law (can. 1364) or commanded by Our Predecessors, before Church students begin their ecclesiastical studies proper they shall be given a sufficiently lengthy course of instruction in Latin by highly competent masters, -
I don't know where you are, but if my part of the world is any indication, that Latin teaching is spotty.
-
If we have only EF Masses
The thread as envisioned doesn't discuss form.
I'd be happy for one weekly OF in Latin on our huge schedule; ecstatic for one regular EF amid 15 OF's.Latin is far from universal.
That remains a convenient "truth" or sentiment, Cdub. Another sentiment from conciliar documents holds that is indeed an esteemed expression of Roman Rite of universality. "All we are saying is, give 'it' a chance." (Sorry, Mr. Lennon.) -
". What became liturgical Latin was the remnants of a once proud language which had deteriorated to street usage. "
Bringing to mind the example of St Boniface who, like other Celtic Christian scholars having learned Latin as a scholarly written language, was rather confused (at best) by the Latin spoken in Rome. -
Oh, I know, Melo. Latin and square notes will save the church and the world. After 50 years of everything but, has anyone considered what would be necessary for any kind of Catholic restoration? I couldn't see it happening with any less than (retired teacher talking) a sold hour of religious instruction every school day from K through grade 12. The reason liturgy worked in earlier times was because there was a solid core of Catholics educated in their faith underpinning the liturgy. Things certainly have changed.
-
"The reason liturgy worked in earlier times was because there was a solid core of Catholics educated in their faith underpinning the liturgy."
Well, it depends on the times. Other times it was merely because people had no easy means of exit. Modernity provides ample exits. -
The attachment to Latin and medieval pomp and finery is pleasing to the senses and emotions.
So CharlesW doesn't like the medieval Latin because it's too fancy? Usually I hear people put down medieval Latin on the ground that it's too simple. Really I wish the critics would make up their minds.
Anyway, as Christine Mohrmann demonstrated, the church Latin of the orations is in a highly literary register that was never street Latin. -
I have seen Latin masses where people were deep in worship. I have seen others where people and even priests were medieval re-enactors fascinated with the lace, appointments, ritual and the good show, and where a good time was had by all.
The medieval Latin likely varied according to the education and status of the celebrant. There was ordinary Latin and a more scholarly Latin, depending on the person and circumstances. Were the average parish priests highly educated? Sometimes, but often not so much. The "standard" referenced in other posts was actually not always standard.
However, I think the differences in externals is not our biggest issue. The church needs catechesis far more than it needs externals. -
Exactly! Unfortunately, the current generation of catechists have as little real knowledge of the Church as those they are catechizing.
-
Exactly! Unfortunately, the current generation of catechists have as little real knowledge of the Church as those they are catechizing
Sad, but true. -
The church needs catechesis far more than it needs externals.
Out of curiosity since we've gone far afield, is catechesis a symptom or cure?Thanked by 1Aristotle Esguerra -
Cure, without question, although it is not a silver bullet.
-
"Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name."
Originally thou was the informal or familiar form of the second person singular in English, and you was the formal or polite form. -
Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
While I don't think we should mitigate the externals of worship -- can anyone think of a Byzantine or Orthodox priest saying that they need to get rid of vestments, candles, incense, etc.? I can't, but I know there are Roman priests who have advocated and done exactly that, saying Mass in nothing but civilian clothes without even putting a stole on -- I think those of us involved in giving CPR to the sacred liturgy should take a good look at what we are doing and why.
There are some people who support the Extraordinary Form who approach it with what I call the Heresy of Nostalgianism. They do everything in their power to make the liturgy a recreation of a mythical Time of Catholic Wonderfulness which they think was some time between 1946 and 1958--post WWII to the death of Pius XII. Little Altar Boys in red cassocks and lace cottas, priests in mass-produced lace albs and tiny fiddlebacks, Rossini propers and all the classics from the St. Gregory Hymnal. They are a completely self-referential and exclusive group of people, with their motto: "This is the way we did it in the Good Old Days," and I wouldn't be surprised if the priest is still saying "una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro Pio" in the canon. These people will look at you askew if you *gasp* sing the full chants from the Graduale, and if the priest wears a conical chasuble--anathema sit!--and heaven forbid anyone in the congregation try to sing: "We didn't do that in the '50's, that's Protestant and we all know where they're going!"
The liturgy for these people is not an act of divine worship, but an activity of Nostalgia--a nostalgia that is an end in itself, and an evil, since it is really the object of their worship. The liturgy is not a living thing, it's a reenactment, a play, an historical drama, where they can relive their past, and as such it is a fabrication.
And, I feel I must say it: Lace is not Mediaeval - it's Baroque, and highly decadent; so decadent, in fact, that even the Bishops wearing it in the 18th Century tried to curtail its use. -
It's interesting how lace, shoe toe lengths, hats, and much more were marks the nobility used to distinguish itself from the common folks. Many of the high churchmen were nobles, as well. That was a different social system that doesn't have much in common with ours today.
I don't think we should abandon the externals, either. But there has to be some real substance behind those externals. -
Originally thou was the informal or familiar form of the second person singular in English, and you was the formal or polite form.
What happened to "thou" and "you" -
I agree with everything you said, Salieri, but I have a soft spot for lace chiefly because of the hours of workmanship and artistry required in making it, which make it so suitable for the adornment of the altar and the Lord's ministers. The priest dressed in the finest sacerdotal vestments is supposed to remind us of the High Priest. Think of that marvelous passage from Eccleasticus 50:6-12:
"He shone in his days as the morning star in the midst of a cloud, and as the moon at the full. And as the sun when it shineth, so did he shine in the temple of God. And as the rainbow giving light in the bright clouds, and as the flower of roses in the days of the spring, and as the lilies that are on the brink of the water, and as the sweet smelling frankincense in the time of summer. As a bright fire, and frankincense burning in the fire. As a massy vessel of gold, adorned with every precious stone, as an olive tree budding forth, and a cypress tree rearing itself on high, when he put on the robe of glory, and was clothed with the perfection of power. When he went up to the holy altar, he honoured the vesture of holiness."
(Quasi stella matutina in medio nebulae et quasi luna plena in diebus suis lucet et quasi sol refulgens sic ille effulsit in templo Dei, quasi arcus effulgens in nebulam gloriae et quasi flos rosarum in diebus veris quasi lilia quae sunt in transitu aquae et quasi tus redolens in diebus aestatis, quasi ignis effulgens et tus ardens in igni, quasi vas auri solidum ornatum omni lapide pretioso, quasi oliva pullulans et gyrus in altitudinem se tollens in accipiendo ipsum stolam gloriae et vestiri eum consummatione virtutis, in ascensu altarii sancti gloriam dedit sanctitatis amictum.) -
Finally! (thank you)but when it comes right down to it, at least from my point of view, it's not the language but the concepts and content of the ancient Roman rite that are the most important to preserve and present since that is the foundation of the Roman Catholic faith and culture and perhaps even of Western Civilization itself.
Thanked by 1Salieri -
Salieri:
What you say also can also describe the fabrictors of the New Mass: "There are some people who support the Reform who approach it with what I call the Heresy of Archeologism. They do everything in their power to make the liturgy a recreation of a mythical Time of Catholic Wonderfulness which they think was some time between the first and third centuries". And using the vernacular as the "language of the people" is one of those archeologisms. Liturgical Latin was never the "language of the people". Of course, neither are heresies, only perversions. But, then, can one really judge people's intentions?Thanked by 1Salieri -
Julie: Real, handmade lace, is very beautiful, and my parish has some lovely examples lovingly made by ladies of the parish over the past century, and, of course, the mass-produced negligee-like "lace" from religious catalogs doesn't hold a candle to the real thing, in artistry, or quality. Of course, the architecture and furniture of the church building itself will often dictate the style of appointments and textiles - what would work in a relatively simple Romanesque church might seem too severe for a lavish Baroque edifice, and v.v.
Ted: Yes, it does cut both ways, of course. My point was just that returning to "what was done the old way", especially out of a perverse nostalgia, is not a panacea that will automatically correct liturgical problems, and that, in fact, it often introduces a whole new world of liturgical problems. Neither the Archaeologists or the Nostaligianists are right: The liturgy is a living thing, not a museum piece. Any celebration that is contrived to be a re-creation of the past, either "what was done in 1953" or "what was done in the second century", is not liturgy, but merely liturgical theatre, to tickle the senses with a reenactment of a past event.
And it is a difficult thing to try to find balance. We use Gregorian chant because it is the musical language of the Roman Rite, just as the Armenians use Armenian Chant, etc.; however, if we use Gregorian Chant because that was "what was done in the 1300's", that is Archaeologism/Nostalgianism.
Of course one cannot judge people's intentions; But, we can judge actions and words, and anyone who has traversed even casually in TradWorld will easily find these characters.Thanked by 1JulieColl -
What you say also can also describe the fabrictors of the New Mass: "There are some people who support the Reform who approach it with what I call the Heresy of Archeologism. They do everything in their power to make the liturgy a recreation of a mythical Time of Catholic Wonderfulness which they think was some time between the first and third centuries". And using the vernacular as the "language of the people" is one of those archeologisms. Liturgical Latin was never the "language of the people".
One of the whole ideas was to "return the liturgy to a greater simplicity of rites," the notion of which was already condemned in Auctorem Fidei, since the Synod of Pistoia tried it in the 1600s. That Latin was not selected as the Church's language because it was a vernacular is true:
"Liturgical Latin, as constituted towards the end of Christian Antiquity and preserved unchanged - in its main lines at least - is a deliberately sacral stylisation of Early Christian Latin as it gradually developed in the Christian communities of the West. The Latin Christians were comparatively late in creating a liturgical language. When they did so, the Christian idiom had already reached full maturity and circumstances rendered it possible to draw, for purposes of style, on the ancient sacral heritage of [pagan] Rome ... As regards the plea which we hear so often for vernacular versions of the prayer texts, I think ... that we are justified in asking whether, at the present time, the the introduction of the vernacular would be suitable for the composition of sacral prayer style. As I have pointed out, the early Christian West waited a long time before adopting the use of Latin. It waited until the Christian language possessed the resources necessary to create an official ecclesiastical prayer language. ... the modern, so-called Western languages ... are less suitable for sacred stylisation. And yet we must realise that sacral stylisation forms an essential element of every official prayer language and that this sacral, hieratic character cannot, and should never, be relinquished. From the point of view of the general development of the Western languages - to say nothing of the problems raised by other languages - the present time is certainly not propitious for the abandonment of Latin".
-Christine Mohrmann -
Would one, taking Mohrman's views as correct, be justified, then, in saying that Roman liturgical Latin is a 'Cranmerian' Latin?
While I am well taught by her scholarship, I do not share her assertion that such sacral dialects are beyond the reach of so-called vernaculars. Cranmerian English, itself, puts the lie to this; as do the ritual languages of all the Orthodox 'vernaculars'. To assert that Latin alone of all western languages has this potentiality is something quite beyond a delusional boast.
I have heard that Tolkien himself was approached to do the English version of the mass after Vatican II. He, it is said, refused because he did not favour this development. I can only weep at what his, no doubt genuine, attachment to Latin cost us. I suspect that his work might very well have been that modern heir to Cranmerian sacral English for which we continue to wait. -
It never seems to get mentioned by those nostalgic romantics that the reason the west developed so slowly, was because the barbarians invaded and destroyed the civilization. If you really want to know what was happening in the west during the 4th century, look to the non-Roman rites which have preserved their liturgies. At that time, the liturgies east and west - also north and south - were more alike than different.
I think Mohrmann tells many attached to the old rite exactly what they want to hear. Her scholarship is rather self-serving, I think. -
Mohrmann wrote before the reforms, so it’s not exactly self–serving.
Jackson, Fr. Hunwicke says Mohrmann believed sacral vernaculars were not yet sufficient. Even using BCP language doesn’t solve the problem of “consubstantial,” the prayers of Trinity Sunday, the Roman Canon, etc. Cranmer expanded or compressed the texts, but mostly the former, which still leaves the problem of minimizing the treason done unto the original texts. Handmissals did that, but at the cost of clarity & even the preservation of either Latin syntax or a clean English syntax. The number of translations for the Byzantine liturgy shows that English is not yet sufficiently developed. -
Mr Osborn: "Cranmerian English, itself, puts the lie to this"
Cranmerian English was not the "language of the people", but the language of the Protestant elite. You have to woneder how well the common people understood this English.
CharlesW: The way the Catholic Church differs is that it has traditionally recognised three sacred languages which are used to formally worship God, the very ones on the Cross of the Christ the King: Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. It is intersting that the Jews have gone back to using Hebrew for worship. Latin, in other words, is not a typical spoken language. Using a vulgar tongue in a sacred way is almost a contradiction, since what makes something sacred is a setting apart of it from the common for God. -
You forgot Old Church Slavonic. Don't be surprised if the Russians are outside your house tonight with pitchforks and torches. LOL.
The Ukrainians have gotten away from OCS, and even OCA doesn't use Russian or OCS much anymore. That is, unless they have a number of immigrants, which they usually don't have.
I think the idea that one language is more "sacred" than another is a bit ridiculous. There are sacred texts written in specific languages. If they are not translated accurately or beautifully into other languages, it is the fault of the translators.
In the west, I have a feeling that habit and clericalism were the factors most responsible for keeping Latin centuries after it ceased to be a spoken language.Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn -
In fact, the people outside of London and parts of the southeast couldn’t understand it.
-
In fact, the people outside of London and parts of the southeast couldn’t understand it.
And all the rest of us English speakers can't understand half the people outside London, either.Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn -
...outside of London...
Not to mention the north, where common folk made bonfires of it when it was first imposed.Thanked by 1CharlesW -
CharlesW: "I think the idea that one language is more "sacred" than another is a bit ridiculous."
I guess the Church has been ridiculous since time immemorial, then. Most if not all major religions have a sacred language, by the way. Maybe these are ridiculous, but not because they have had a sacred language which stands in the realm of reverence.
I have sensed in this discussion so far that for those who object to the Latin, the abstract concepts and ideas transmitted by language are being valued more than the leaps of faith in the heart that are not expressible in words. That is modernism, which cares about one's life experience only in so far as it is a "knowledge". It seems to me that that is exactly what pope Francis has been getting at when he speaks about gnosticism, a salvation sought in knowledge. -
even OCA doesn't use Russian or OCS much anymore.
Is outrage! This is why we have ROCOR.Thanked by 1CharlesW -
That is modernism, which cares about one's life experience only in so far as it is a "knowledge".
What knowledge? The congregation isn't getting any knowledge from Latin. They don't understand it. I am assuming you do, so perhaps you are getting something out of it. Most don't.I guess the Church has been ridiculous since time immemorial, then.
It has its moments - LOL. Some would say papal elections are proof of that. -
Charles: The congregation is giving God reverence using a sacred language. Reverence comes from the heart. Knowledge comes from the mind.
-
Here is why English—especially in its Cranmerian form—is superior: It’s a language forever associated with the Cross of Christ (see my quote of Jn 19:19–20 [King James Version, of course!] above).
Whenever English is used in a liturgical context, those who are aware of the holy English abbreviation JoNtKotJ (remember, what Pilate wrote, he wrote—in English!) are forever reminded that it, along with Hebrew and Greek, were nailed to the Cross along with the Saviour, and are thus sacred by association with the instrument of our salvation.
What more needs to be said? -
Can't do chant in English? Tell that to the Anglicans who have done it for 500 years.
I have been away, but I have seen this comment made on the forum before, but is it true? A book I was reading a few weeks ago had references to the liturgy before during and after Cromwell, and I don't think the 500 years of (good) chant in English is true. I would suggest say 150 years (Oxford movement).Would one, taking Mohrman's views as correct, be justified, then, in saying that Roman liturgical Latin is a 'Cranmerian' Latin?
They are both languages adapted for use in a Sacred setting, so yes.I have heard that Tolkien himself was approached to do the English version of the mass after Vatican II.
Interesting, so you would appreciate Tolkien's translation, no doubt due to his understanding and skill in using English, but reject his view that this would be a bad development, no doubt formed from his knowledge and understanding of English.
A further question would be, Was Cranmer the best choice of translator? I can think of others from that time that may have been better choices, but suspect they may have refused as did Tolkien.
I have also noticed the idea that Latin was enforced as a language of Liturgy in the West by clericalism... as well a silly arguments about translations of the Bible.
1. Latin in the West was until quite recently the Language of Science (Education and learning) With this being the case Latin would automatically be the language of Liturgy, in societies where (ALL) those that could read and write would do so mainly in Latin.
2. St. Bede and Alfred the great are known to have translated (parts) of the Bible into Anglo-Saxon, the Church had no problem with this, I am sure that almost every priest could and did translate the Latin texts into the local dialect of the people.
3. As the English used today began to form in the later middle ages, the Church may have been slow in producing an English text. Unfortunately the early unofficial English translations (See St. Thomas More's comments) were full of errors and were quite rightly condemned.
4. The Language of education remained Latin until well after the production of good English translations... -
@Salieri
ROCOR seems to be a pretty broad church, embracing English in both Eastern and Western liturgies, and apparently Latin as well.
Saint Edmund the Martyr Orthodox Church -
3. As the English used today began to form in the later middle ages, the Church may have been slow in producing an English text. Unfortunately the early unofficial English translations (See St. Thomas More's comments) were full of errors and were quite rightly condemned.
My understanding is that English translations were developing until the Norman conquest. Since French was the language of the conquerors, work on English translations came to a halt.The congregation is giving God reverence using a sacred language. Reverence comes from the heart. Knowledge comes from the mind.
The congregation has become spectators at an event in which they are not participating in any meaningful way. Even the Vatican railed against that lack of participation numerous times, but couldn't get it changed. It is all good theater, just not good worship.... I don't think the 500 years of (good) chant in English is true. I would suggest say 150 years (Oxford movement).
We'll take it, gladly. It is far, far better than what is heard in most U.S. parishes on Sundays.
Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn -
My understanding is that English translations were developing until the Norman conquest. Since French was the language of the conquerors, work on English translations came to a halt.
The language spoken before the conquest should not really be described as English in the modern sense... The 'Old English' of the time was a fusion of the languages of the various germanic invaders. This old English had a variety of dialects and had from the 6th c. used the Latin alphabet. I would suggest that everyone who could read and write Old-English could also do the same in Latin.
After the Conquest the Anglo-Saxon (Old English) dialects gradually fused with the old Norman language (related to modern French). Translations would not really be useful during this time because everyone that could read, could read Latin, both Anglo-Saxons and Normans. -
The congregation has become spectators at an event in which they are not participating in any meaningful way. Even the Vatican railed against that lack of participation numerous times, but couldn't get it changed. It is all good theater, just not good worship.
Being one who has just written about the problem of liturgical theatre, I do have to take slight issue with the notion that this is the result of Latin qua Latin.
The spectator/liturgical-theatre question is multi-faceted, but I feel has more to do with attitudes and catechesis, than language. Actual participation doesn't just mean doing things - it also includes the interior disposition of people, which manifests itself in the actions of the congregation. I think all of us have witnessed vernacular OF Masses where the congregation would really rather be somewhere else, and have taken the role of mute spectators. Yeah, the sit, stand, kneel, but probably only out of habit--they hear their 'cue' and the do the action, they mumble the spoken responses, and the only one singing is the cantor, and they leave as soon as possible. This, obviously, has nothing to do with not knowing the language, this is an attitude problem: they have better things to do, they're "doing their time", and they really couldn't care less.
As I have said, Latin (which i love), is not a panacea to fix this problem, but it can't be the sole reason for this problem, not after fifty years, when most of the people who actually lived before the council are dead. -
I think all of us have witnessed vernacular OF Masses where the congregation would really rather be somewhere else, and have taken the role of mute spectators. Yeah, the sit, stand, kneel, but probably only out of habit--they hear their 'cue' and the do the action, they mumble the spoken responses, and the only one singing is the cantor, and they leave as soon as possible. This, obviously, has nothing to do with not knowing the language, this is an attitude problem: they have better things to do, they're "doing their time", and they really couldn't care less.
As I said before, they're on autopilot; that's not FCAP.The congregation has become spectators at an event in which they are not participating in any meaningful way.
How do you define "participation in a meaningful way?" This seems highly subjective to me. The fact that we have statements like this reflects what Fr. Anthony Cekada says is a theological shift in the liturgy: from Theology of the Mass as Sacrifice, to Theology of the Mass as Assembly, where now the congregation is the focal point.
Also, I am aware of Fr. Cekada's views as a sedevacantist, and citing that as refutation is simply ad hominem. I do not wish to enter into a discussion about Fr. Cekada's personal views on the Pope.Thanked by 1eft94530 -
I think all of us have witnessed vernacular OF Masses where the congregation would really rather be somewhere else, and have taken the role of mute spectators. Yeah, the sit, stand, kneel, but probably only out of habit--they here their 'cue' and the do the action, they mumble the spoken responses, and the only one singing is the cantor, and they leave as soon as possible. This, obviously, has nothing to do with not knowing the language, this is an attitude problem: they have better things to do, they're "doing their time", and they really couldn't care less.
Since the same happened with the (pre VII) EF Mass, elementary logic would tell us that the real problem is independent of the language.
Further: we have had ~50 years of English liturgy, with all the "people's parts" in English. Therefore, it is impossible to claim with a straight face that--when Latin is employed--the people "cannot understand" their parts. They've been saying them for 50 years! Who are you trying to kid, folks??
Side note: for several weeks a local parish has utilized an Anglicized setting of the Gloria of Mass VIII. It's serviceable, but no matter the genius of the arranger, it simply does not work as well as the original.
-
The issue has arrived to where the problem is, "active participation". That gnostic Liturgical Movement tainted the Council, and corrupted the reforms that followed. The reforms by the "experts" took this participation in the sense of people fully, conciously and actively participating in the Mass, instead of people worshiping and adoring God in and through their hearts to the degree that they accept God's grace during the Mass. Pascal and others long ago realised that the heart has its reasons, which is to say, the heart speaks and thinks but without words. This is not sentimentalism or emotionalism, but the core of Faith. Faith has a subjective component which the liturgical reformers, as Ivory Tower experts, who were generally removed from the experiences of the population, ignored, if not tried to suppress, in the interests of academic objectivity. For the reformers, the Mass became an idol. It continues to be one for many, as suggested by the sentiments for music and language.
On the other hand, is it not amazing how the Mass of the Ages nourished the Catholic population centuries upon centuries and yet the people rarely understood the language of the Sacrifice? The Mass of the Ages knowns the heart very well, assumes that the people are there to worship and adore God, although in a formal setting, through their hearts in their own personal way, while the clergy formally offer the Sacrifice to God on their behalf, as that is their vocation. And now, all of a sudden, that is problematic.
I just finished reading an article by Mathew Mendez, by the way, "Youth and the Liturgy" in Alcuin Reid's Liturgy in the 21st Century that has just come out. It is (spoiler here) a moving picture of the hardships encountered by a young man trying to Worship God according to Catholic tradition, a tradition that in my opinion is anchored in Beauty. I have to admit, it speaks to my experience somewhat. The rationalisations by those in authority that what he was doing was wrong are frightening, and they continue to be ubiquitous. And that is precisely the problem, intellectual "rationalisations". Faith is not rational. It is beyond the rational as a gift from God. So yes, the issue of Latin is a lot about about Faith, and consequently about how the Church as Christ's body of the living and the dead addresses God in formal worship. In other words, formal worship is mainly about God, not the people.
-
As I have said, Latin (which i love), is not a panacea to fix this problem, but it can't be the sole reason for this problem, not after fifty years, when most of the people who actually lived before the council are dead.
Actually, we are not all dead. I was roughly 16 - 17 or so when the council ended and followed it attentively. I plan on staying around for awhile, since there are many people I still need to get even with. ;-)
On the other hand, is it not amazing how the Mass of the Ages nourished the Catholic population centuries upon centuries and yet the people rarely understood the language of the Sacrifice
What "ages?" The "Mass of the Ages" goes back to the Council of Trent and not much more than that. It has some elements that survived from the authentic Roman liturgies, but much of it dates no earlier than Trent.
In any event, the church called a council to update that liturgy, so it must have seen some issues and problems with it. The issue is not language, and I still hold Latin is no more inherently holy than Greek, English, or anything else. If competent education on the mass existed, the mass could be in Swahili and be understood and have plenty of congregational participation.
-
CharlesW: There have been a few improvements little by little in the Mass of the Ages as it evolved over the centuries. But look at a 10th century Frankish Missal and look at the 1962 Missal. The differences are not that many, and fairly minor, the prayers at the foot of the altar as part of the Mass probably being the biggest difference. The New Mass in the vernacular is almost unrecognisable, yet human nature has not changed.
I am not particularly against vulgar or profane tongues being used in the didactic part of the Mass, that is, the synaxis. But I do take issue for the sacrificial part. Many would argue that that is what the Council Fathers envisioned, the possiblity of the vernacular for the synaxis, but not for everything else. -
Even the Frankish mass was a not really the mass of the 4th century. Liturgy in the west degraded after the fall of Rome, along with the entire civilization and its culture. There is no Mass of the Ages. That's a romantic and somewhat melodramatic invention by certain writers of the 19th century. I am not sure there are vulgar or profane tongues either. This reminds me of St. Peter and the unclean animals. There are many reasons the current Latin Rite liturgy needs improving and refining. Language is not one of those reasons.
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,105
- General Music Discussion7,593
- Job Openings1,303
- Management of Music Programs833
- Choral Matters519
- Church Documents and Rubrics504
- CMAA Notes291
- Events651
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony528
- Hymnody821
- Gregorian Chant: General2,582
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis354
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology57
- Vernacular Plainsong671
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant66
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire414
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,208
- Recordings222
- Music for Hispanic Ministry151
- Music Education: Children205
- Music Education: General214
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism723
- Amusements170
- General Discussion1,000
- Opinions113