By prompt, do you mean this?: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-first-in-english-cardinal-baccis.html#more

from the autopilot church attender - "I don't mind going to church for an hour on Sundays - as long as it doesn't interfere with my life."

[Francis Lite] you already know my answers. [/Francis Lite]

Ten years from now, maybe they'll say "Vernacular---what's vernacular?" : )

Maybe in 50 years?

Some form of this same topic resurrects every so often. I greatly doubt the western church will ever go back to its pre-conciliar liturgy on any widespread scale. What would be the advantage to restoring a liturgical language that few understand or care about? Even the eastern churches have moved toward the vernacular.

What I think is needed is a promulgation of the old liturgy in the vernacular. The problem was the development of a new liturgy, not a faithful translation of the old. Can't do chant in English? Tell that to the Anglicans who have done it for 500 years. Don't have the appropriate air of mystery in the vernacular? Turn down the lights and use more incense.

It seems to me that what is discussed when this topic reappears on the forum, involves theater more than actual worship. Let's not forget the other bugaboo of vernacular worship - besides Latin, that is. It would sound much better if sung from square notes written with quills and inkwells by monastics - Benedictines, preferably.

Can't do chant in English? Tell that to the Anglicans who have done it for 500 years.

Can't do chant in Latin? Tell that to the Catholics who have been doing it for a couple of millennia now.

It would sound much better if sung from square notes written with quills and inkwells by monastics - Benedictines, preferably.

That would be true of the phonebook, if it comes down to it.

So, is the consensus thus far that these issues are caused or remedied by ecclesial action rather than liturgical? (Chicken or egg proposition?)
As Liam noted, the questions raised were extrapolated from +Cdl. Bacci's letter of 1962. And the vagaries of rolling out the vernacular, as Richard so eloquently outlines above, have not been mitigated by the common sense principles the cardinal advanced. Now we live in a literally information-saturated era. Does a comprehensible language necessarily beget cognition, or instability and dissonance? Does a didactic liturgy improve critical thinking which fosters "participation?"

Does a didactic liturgy improve critical thinking which fosters "participation?"

If we're referring to the Mass, then we have to ask ourselves this following question: is Mass primarily didactic in nature?

Heavens no, the Mass cannot purposefully be didactic. Oughtn't its essence be experiential?
And don't we rightly allow the head to inform the heart and situate the soul when we experience the Divine Liturgy?

As will the ones that do. The Biological Solution comes for all.

CharlesW: "It seems to me that what is discussed when this topic reappears on the forum, involves theater more than actual worship."
Exactly what do you understand by "actual worship". The Mass has been thought of as a sacred drama since at least the time of Amalarius of Metz in the 9th century. The conquest of the vernacular in the Church over the past century was a product of modernism which stresses the satisfactions of the intellect over the joys of the heart.

Liam: No, it is Post-modernism that stresses the joys of individual hearts over the satisfactions of the intellect, because there are no satisfactions of the intellect in a world where there is no truth.

Ten years from now, maybe they'll say "Vernacular---what's vernacular?"

Actually, they'll say "Quid est lingua franca?"

MarkS:
I think the problem was that the vernacular was thought to be the magic bullet that would solve all of the Church's problems, and almost all the Catholic Episcopal Conferences bought into that following the Council. The problems were deeper than that which neither the Novus Ordo nor the vernacular addressed.
There is nothing to prevent any Catholic from reading the Bible in the vernacular outside the liturgy. That said, the Catholic Church has been very cautious in having non-theologians read the Bible especially in its translated vernacular forms, and especially after witnessing the Protestant multiplication of beliefs following the so-called Reformation.

http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2015/08/03/outrage-after-man-butchers-beloved-liturgy-in-zimbabwe/

Charles' pellucid comment is absolutely spot on. Truth be known, there were numerous bishops and even more priests in the late middle ages and, particularly, at the time of the reformation, who wanted the liturgy to be put into the vernacular. Like so, so much else that had been begging for reform for centuries, this went unheeded by an establishment who thought its particular reckoning was eternal and infallible.

Actually, there is some purely practical reason that, in the west, the Latin tongue was retained so long in liturgy - namely, that there was little of literary development in the myriad of vernaculars which peppered the mediaeval European linguistic landscape. (Too, granted that a lingering and delusional Romanitas played its part.) This was never a problem in the east, which had numerous written and literate languages from of old. In the west literate vernaculars simply did not exist. However, by the late middle ages, this was no longer true of the west, as developing 'vernacular' literature bears witness. There is one over-riding reason for the retention of the Latin tongue past the late mediaeval, renaissance, and early modern eras: clerical obstinance, clerical entitlement, and a condescending, disgustingly arrogant and prideful estimation of the intelligence, even the worth, of 'the laity' and the ritual potential of their languages.

The problem for many of us musicians, however, is: we have this remarkable repertory of liturgical music that was composed for the mediaeval and Tridentine mass. We don't want to loose it! Nor does the Church wish us to. This is a genuine conundrum. The work of Tallis, Byrd, Gibbons, Weelkes, Tomkins, et al., is ample proof that sublime ritual music is far, very, very far from impossible in vernaculars. If they had been permitted at the time of the reformation, why, who can say what glories equal to Latin polyphony might be a part of those treasures in the Church's dower which belong to all times. And, the English were not the only ones! Look at the great Schutz and more. Alas! Obstinance decreed that it was not to be. The inahabitants of this ecclesiastical Versailles could not countenance the adaptation of any of the worthy reform and development that was sorely, desperately, needed.

I must, also, contest this silly notion that vernacular is a thing of the intellect, whilst Latin is, magically, a thing of the truly worshipping heart, of the tranced soul. Aside from omitting that Latin, too, is a potent intellectual tongue, this is pure subjective nonsense, bred, I suspect, by a not very objective understanding of reality and all the historical and cultural genetics at play. Beware! Pride may be at work here - and in its most poisonous and insidious form: spiritual pride. Nor shall I bother, here, to enumerate from the well known catalogue of abuses of the Latin liturgy which give evidence that there is nothing at all inherently sacred or conducive of spiritual ecstasy in the use of the Latin tongue. These exalted entrancements arise, purely and as singular gifts from above, from the appropriately disposed heart, mind, body, and soul.

I must, too, concur most heartily with those above who have observed that the great 'experiment' of Vatican II's Pauline liturgy is a failure - not, I stress, inherently, not sui generis, but with respect to its most common manifestations at the hands of countless foolish clerics and hierarchs, and their minions, both male and female. The thought was that we would arrive at a liturgical nirvana by embracing the people in the action of the mass, allowing them to play their fullest participatory role in it, an objectively laudable and long overdue development. Had this not, in fact, been the dream of several pre-conciliar pontiffs? What happened was not what might have been the Roman version of the Anglo-Catholic experience, but a thorough trashing of the Church's worship by clowns (some dressed like clowns, most of them not - but clowns just the same; you know: the Fr Ed Sullivan types and worse), psychological clowns, spiritual clowns, cultural clowns, musical clowns, and more, all of them intellectual and spiritual dwarfs who were and are embarrassed to death over the profound, unspeakably holy mysteries which they have (astonishingly!) been given leave to celebrate. Further, we have been subjected to numberless prelates and priests, shameless in the inauthenticity of their acts, who have with preposterous arrogance presumed illicitly to forbid, obstruct, and demean those very treasures which the Church, in oecumenical council, stated were to be 'preserved', 'fostered', and 'cultivated'. This, as I have stated elsewhere, was a phenomenon of the times and would have been in some manner or another visited upon the Tridentine rite if that had been all that was available. No, don't blame this on the vernacular. Attempting to do so is an act which, being neither logically defensible, nor objectively realistic, is fundamentally irrational. Those who make the attempt are targeting anything and everything but a basic sickness in the Catholic Church, a liturgical sickness, which infects us now, and has been around for long centuries of Latin exclusivity. As a serum one just might give a very thoughtful glance at H.F. Benedict's bold act, the Ordinariate Use, by which the lie is put to any sniveling estimation of vernacular worship. No one is suggesting that normal Roman rite parishes should suddenly turn themselves into clones of Walsingham (heaven forbid!) - but there is more than meets the eye to learn from this 'Benedictine' gift to the Church.

I'm going to stop here, for now, though there is much more to be said in this matter.

Mr. Osborn: "I must, also, contest this silly notion that vernacular is a thing of the intellect, whilst Latin is, magically, a thing of the truly worshipping heart, of the tranced soul This is pure subjective nonsense, bred, I suspect, by a not very objective understanding of reality."
It seems we live in different worlds, where for one objectivity is the truth, whilst for another, like Kierkegaard would say, subjectivity is the truth.

Church Latin is not even good Latin.

I must strongly disagree. Later patristic & medieval Latin is beautiful. I have a harder time with Ciceronian Latin, and the Urban hymns give me a difficult time.

Again, musicality. Later Latin flows more like Italian, but doesn't have the accuracy of the original language.

Accuracy? Charles, are you plumping for Ciceronian Latin as a standard? Sounds like some of that mystical language "thing" you were talking about.

Accuracy? Charles, are you plumping for Ciceronian Latin as a standard? Sounds like some of that mystical language "thing" you were talking about.

What is really thoroughly objectionable is the faux mystique attributed to it. Mystique is often just that - the mask for highly subjective emotional phantasms

Jackson answered it for me. The attachment to Latin and medieval pomp and finery is pleasing to the senses and emotions. Some go for that while others don't. Granted, some English liturgies have strayed too far in the other direction. It's appeal as any kind of universal language is also suspect. If there even is a universal language, English would be closer than Latin.

I have nothing against Latin, BTW. I just find the arguments for it rather weak.

Ah, but those Catholics are gone. In my part of the world, I don't see any groundswell or movement for Latin liturgy. It seems something desired by few. How about the rest of the world? Any different?

It's like my friend's explanation on finding Christians in Europe - they're there. You just need to know where to look. (They might not always be very apt at 'social networking'.)

[Besides, um, all well-informed persons know that Latin was given to us for the sole purpose of being translated into Cranmerian English.]

I know the above is written in fun, but it brings up another point. I've never done a thorough comparative study of the Anglican liturgical texts with the texts of the 1962 Missal, but I know the Cranmerian texts were approved for use by the CDW, so I don't doubt the validity in any way, shape or form. However, I very much love the theological and doctrinal fullness of the traditional Roman rite, particularly in the Offertory and Canon of the Mass. (I also revel in the Latin.)

It's possible, though, that a beautiful, faithful Cranmerian English translation of the 1962 Missal might be of benefit, as long as it is in a hieratical style that is removed from the colloquial or common usage (as the ICEL translation was not), if such a project is even possible in this day and age.

I admit to being prejudiced to the traditional Roman rite and am inclined to believe that the 1962 Missal is more doctrinally satisfying than the Anglican texts, 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.

Matthew

That question is based on the questionable assumption of including all people in nations where French is an official language - but in Sub-Saharan Africa (where the growth will be), most of those don't actually speak the language...