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.
Having a standard, constant language in which all documents have their definitive form protects and promotes orthodoxy.
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,
If we have only EF Masses
Latin is far from universal.
The attachment to Latin and medieval pomp and finery is pleasing to the senses and emotions.
Exactly! Unfortunately, the current generation of catechists have as little real knowledge of the Church as those they are catechizing
The church needs catechesis far more than it needs externals.
"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.
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.
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".
In fact, the people outside of London and parts of the southeast couldn’t understand it.
...outside of London...
even OCA doesn't use Russian or OCS much anymore.
That is modernism, which cares about one's life experience only in so far as it is a "knowledge".
I guess the Church has been ridiculous since time immemorial, then.
Can't do chant in English? Tell that to the Anglicans who have done it for 500 years.
Would one, taking Mohrman's views as correct, be justified, then, in saying that Roman liturgical Latin is a 'Cranmerian' Latin?
I have heard that Tolkien himself was approached to do the English version of the mass after Vatican II.
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.
The congregation is giving God reverence using a sacred language. Reverence comes from the heart. Knowledge comes from the mind.
... I don't think the 500 years of (good) chant in English is true. I would suggest say 150 years (Oxford movement).
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 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 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.
The congregation has become spectators at an event in which they are not participating in any meaningful way.
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.
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.
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
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.