Well, "O hold thou up my goings in the paths" is a little obscure for me, and I wouldn't fault anyone for boggling at it a bit.

It's not the humo(u)r, Francis, but bewilderment at your over-statement of a pragmatic case, and your strange assignment to England of a sacral English that is the heritage and product of the whole Anglophone world, including the Catholic elements of it. BTW - I take it your pips don't have problems with the usual translations of the the Pater Noster and the Ave Maria (you know - the bits they didn't dare meddle with); or, for that matter, with the deep concepts of the Creed?

ps sorry if that seems like a rant - I've just undergone the pennance of setting the Grail responsorial psalm for the 18th Sunday in Ordinary Time to a psalm tone. Let's just say the translation is no advert for the use of modern English in the liturgy.

The recessional hymn has no competition. There you go.

That's true, Michael, and the Marian anthem proper to the time of year is a hymn. And if the vernacular is preferred, people do love those traditional translations :-)

I would question the statistics on the OF in Latin. How do they know? My choir sings for such a Mass, but how do I know it was included?

Even if you think that the EF is the more desirable form, as I do, and you acknowledge that the EF has become more frequently celebrated, as I do, there is a purpose in cultivating the OF in Latin; this should be the paradigm of the OF with proper and ordinary chanted, together with the priest chanting his parts. At the Colloquium, we celebrate the OF and EF side-by-side, and in their ideal forms there is much that is similar. I sympathize with those who retreat into the EF exclusively, but I think we have a mission to keep some interaction between the forms, principally for the sake of improving the OF.

At the recent meeting of the Latin Liturgy Association, a priest who celebrates the EF said that he didn't think that the celebration of the EF had any effect upon the OF. It was immediately volunteered that priests use the Roman Canon now more frequently in the OF and occasionally celebrate it ad orientem. These may be small steps, but still significant.

It has been pointed out above that, even though the OF is not frequently celebrated in Latin, there has been in the last decade a considerable incorporation of some Latin pieces in its celebration, the occasional Latin proper, but more frequently, some of the Ordinary. It has been my suggestion at the colloquium that in most parish situations, the best option is the gradual introduction of Latin chants, one-by-one, always monitoring their reception by the congregation. For example, a local parish near us introduced the singing of the entire ordinary in Latin chant recently, and the response fro the congregation was very positive; they continue to sing it.

Concerning the singing of the propers, I think that this depends partly upon the congregation's singing of the Ordinary. If they sing all of the Ordinary, then it will not seem that they are being deprived of their active participation when the choir sings the propers. Moreover, the parts of the Ordinary are in and of themselves the liturgical action at that moment; they do not accompany any other action. Such a proper as the introit, however, is an accompaniment of another action. Why should the congregation be asked to provide the music to accompany another liturgical action? I would even suggest that one function of the introit is to set a sacred tone to the whole Mass and to create a sense of anticipation of what is to come, which begins to be fulfilled when the congregation sings their part in the penitential rite and the Kyrie and Gloria.

Choirs and perhaps capable cantors cannot be provided for all Masses; hymns will always be used in such situations. Still their limitations should be understood.

Maybe I missed it, but I still cannot find any source for these statistics.

The situation for Latin in the Ordinary Form may be worse (or better, who knows) than what is indicated in the LLA directory. The listings at their web site for my diocese are just two churches: one church is no longer open, and the other church's listing is incorrect, so I would not treat the list as reliable.

The more I think about these data, the more ridiculous they seem. I've attend Latin NO in three neighboring towns as part of special parish events and retreats but these are not counted. In any case, as I argue on the Cafe, the question of language alone is the wrong question. I've been to EF low Masses with English hymns, yet I suppose this is counted as a Latin MAss?

Leaving aside PKTP's obnoxious rhetoric, his observation about the declining number of Latin OF Masses is not a surprise to me. I think it's an accurate point about the current state of liturgical practice in this country.

As a member of the Latin Liturgy Association, I get their occasional newsletters, and a few years ago, the LLA's newsletter made exactly the same observation. (I wish I could find the issue, to cite it.) They noticed more Masses according to the 1962 Missal, and fewer Latin Masses according to the 1970 Missal -- at least Masses known to them. For people who have followed this topic, it is well known that many 1970-Missal Latin Masses were replaced by 1962-Missal Latin Masses as permission became available in stages, from 1984 onward.

Jeffrey's reactions, calling the numbers "ridiculous" and observing that one-time Masses are not counted, seem -- well, not even serious.

"I've been to EF low Masses with English hymns, yet I suppose this is counted as a Latin MAss?"
Of course! If Mass is 'celebrated' in Latin it means that first of all the 'celebrant' uses Latin, at least for the 'presidial' parts - eucharistic prayer, orations, versicles. Therefore, in the case of OF, if the choir sings ordinary, propers or ad libitum motets in Latin, but the celebrant sings or speaks his parts in English it is English, not Latin OF Mass.

Priests who wish to offer the OF in Latin are free to do so. Priests who wish to offer the EF are free to do so. For myself, I don't see why we cannot simply leave it at that. Those who truly understand what the Mass is are grateful for the Mass: whether OF or EF. Anyone who denigrates either one doesn't understand what the Mass is.

I dodn't get the same reverance and sacredness from vernacular as from latin, especially in English which uses the same words to God as we use to a pet; you, hear me, help me so on. (I understand that the latin was once a vernacular, but it is the sacered language for us now which God chose and made it that no earthly nations can claim as her own lagnuage.) Even in OF, I much prefer listening to the sacred language that the Church has been using for centuries than hearing the casual vernacular, even if I have to look at the translation. Also latin is aesthetically superior than English to my ears.
We have to remember that the Church permitted vernacular, but asked to preserve Latin in Mass. Not the other way around. Just because many people do certain things their way don't necessarily make them right.

Latin did not survive as a "sacred language" in the same way as Hebrew did until the modern era. That is, its use was not primarily sacred. Rather, it was used in a variety of civil and secular ways, and not incidentally so.

Catholics should not treat Latin like KJV separatists treat the King James translation of the Bible (the "if the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me" approach to translation). And it is important to remember that the Latin *is* a translation, at least of texts based on Scripture - the original texts of Scripture are Hebrew and Greek, not Latin.

Latin did not survive as a "sacred language" in the same way as Hebrew did until the modern era.

Aside from its intrinsic beauty and a very long history of employment, being a dead language enhanced the estimation of Latin in the minds of pre-Vatican II moderns. Being fixed in time gave it that sacred, otherworldly bearing. I am of an age where that reasoning or emotional response still resonates, but it would be foolish of me to ignore the present widespread resistance to anything other than a limited use of Latin in the liturgy. Any statistical advantage the extraordinary form Mass now enjoys over a Latin use ordinary form use surely reflects that resistance.

So if we wait long enough the language of the NO and New American Bible will become consecrated and sacred? Oh dear Lord! Head for the hills. The end times are near! ;-)

I still think the survival of church Latin is more a result of cultural stagnation and papal intractability than any divine design.

C

You could certainly be onto something that the end times are near. The confusion that surrounds the sacred liturgy among it's own prelates is certainly a sign of the times.

That is correct to my knowledge also. So where did it all go haywire?

Nothing so melodramatic as that.

But the shift did reveal that the liturgical culture that preceded it was often a combination of brittleness and shallow pragmatism, though there were oases here and there, in some places more than others. The pragmatic dimension ended up be the more resilient dimension.

You can inspire a culture to coalesce by good example and empowerment (very much including resourcing), if you can persuade your audience of the need; precepts and legislation can provide support, but they cannot successfully dictate persuasion and inspiration.

"the Church chose Latin not others"

The Roman See chose Latin. There were still four other apostolic Sees that were speaking Greek. Even after the Schism, there were certain Greek- and Aramaic-speaking groups, such as the Maronites, who never lost their unity with Rome. Then, of course, there were other groups that left union with Rome, and then came back.

Ecclesiastical Latin is beautiful, but it is not supreme in any way to Greek, or Hebrew, or Aramaic, for example. Be careful of assigning theological meaning to pragmatic historical developments.

Well, the Latin of the Mass prayers is not common casual speech; the literary and oratorical structures in them were obviously cultivated by the Church for her sacred purposes.

One of Susan Benofy's fine articles for Adoremus mentioned the point:

Some argued that the Latin of the Mass was simply the everyday language of Christians of the fourth century, and so, the Mass today must likewise be in everyday language. Christine Mohrmann, a professor at the Universities of Nijmegen and Amsterdam who specialized in the study of Christian Latin, disputed this view. She gave three lectures at the Catholic University of America, published as Liturgical Latin: Its Origins and Character (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1957).

In one of these lectures she said:

The advocates of the use of the vernacular who maintain that even in Christian antiquity the current speech of everyday life, “the Latin of the common man”, was employed, are far off the mark.... The earliest liturgical Latin is a strongly stylized, more or less artificial language, of which many elements — for instance Orations — were not easily understood even by the average Christian of the fifth century or later. This language was far removed from that of everyday life. (Liturgical Latin, pp. 60-61)

Some discussions before the Council concerning the use of the vernacular took account of this argument, and dealt with the complexity of balancing intelligibility with the form of expression appropriate to communicating sacred things.

A 1956 symposium on English in the liturgy included a paper by H. P. R. Finberg, a professor of local history at the University of Leicester, and one of the translators of The Missal in Latin and English, a 1949 Missal for use by the laity. (The prayers for this Missal were translated by Finberg and the Reverend J. O’Connell; Scripture readings were from the translation by Monsignor Ronald Knox.)

In Dr. Finberg’s paper for the symposium, “The Problem of Style”, he said:

Those who advocate the use of the mother tongue in public worship do so because they wish to heighten the layman’s understanding of, and participation in, the sacred mysteries. But we have to recognize that it is just as possible to be obscure or clumsy in English as it is in Latin.… The question of English in the liturgy cannot usefully be discussed apart from the question, what sort of English? (“The Problem of Style”, in English in the Liturgy: A Symposium, C. R. A. Cunliffe, editor. Springfield, IL: Templegate, 1956, p. 109)

Actually there were originally five apostolic sees: Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. All five originally spoke mainly Greek; Rome adopted Latin early on, as it was the language of the Empire, but the other four remained Greek-speaking far longer (Antioch speaks Arabic now, and Alexandria Coptic). In fact, there is still Greek in the Roman liturgy--the Kyrie--which hearkens back to the day when the entire liturgy was in Greek.

I don't have a problem with Latin being considered a beautiful, sacred, liturgical language. That it is. The problem is when it is considered the ONLY one.

Although I'm beginning to realize you're talking solely about the Roman rite here... I am not. Nevertheless, the Roman Rite was reformed to allow widespread use of the vernacular. The other rites in union with Rome show that the vernacular can be every bit as sacred and serviceable as the Latin is, if done properly. There is nothing about Latin that makes it inherently more sacred than other languages except for its age, which is surpassed by the age of Greek and Aramaic liturgies still in use today, and the tradition of the Church, which includes much more than the Roman rite.

postscript

yes, I am Orthodox, and I don't accept the supremacy of Rome et al. Nevertheless, I am just trying to highlight things that the Catholic and Orthodox East have 100% in common. Rome is in union with Eastern churches that left and went back, but also others that never left at all, just as the Maronites (iirc), who remained in ignorance of the Schism for a long time afterward, and when discovered later just went on in union with Rome as always. But even if one accepts the Pope as supreme amongst bishops, it does not follow, then, that the Roman rite is supreme among Catholic rites.

I didn't post this thread hoping to cause wailing and gnashing of teeth. It seems as if people are reacting with the various stages of the grieving/rejection process -- denial, anger ("I never liked Latin anyway"). Next comes bargaining, btw.

If people think the Novus Ordo in Latin is worthwhile, they will need to do what the Tridentine Mass enthusiasts have done: work hard, work smart, and work for a long time. The reason there are no statistics to refute P.K.T.P. is because nobody has considered it a worthwhile use of his time to publish a national directory of all-Latin Novus Ordo Masses -- a telling sign of a lack of popular interest. And the statistics could get worse as Summorum Pontificum gets implemented in more dioceses.

Where is the literature (magazines, journals, etc.) extolling the greatness of the N.O. in Latin? The sung "Laus tibi", for example, or the sung Canon, or the neo-Vulgate in the Psalms? Is the Novus Ordo Missae not a great work of the Church? We know de fide that it is an indefectible work, and we know from experience that its indefectible holiness is more often denigrated by the sloppiness and sacrileges committed by its own practitioners than by the raillery of the sedevacantists and sedeprivationists who deny its inherent sanctity. Are there no orthodox apologists left for the biggest liturgical reform in the history of Christianity, now that it is no longer mandatory?

Let me share a public secret with you, friends, as someone attached primarily to the EF. The Novus Ordo Missae can never be abrogated. If nobody practices it, it will die out (like the Sarum Rite, or the pre-1910 Breviary), but if even a remnant of the faithful (as opposed to a rump group of atheists or eco-feminists) hold out for the six-year cycle of readings, the rationalization of the sanctoral calendar, the versus populum posture as an option...then it could well last until the end of time.

And if it does last until the end of time, it should not be Latin-phobic, or Gregorian chant-phobic, because that is not what it actually is. The Novus Ordo is a Latin Rite of the Latin Church. The Latin language ties the Novus Ordo to the Apostolic See and also to continuity with the Latin Tradition. I think there's a big problem when people are choosing to abandon either the Novus Ordo or the Latin language, or insisting on only half-Latin services. Without a Latin Novus Ordo, the Novus Ordo becomes unmoored. There are all-Greek services of the Greek Church, even in the United States. Why not all-Latin Novus Ordos? Where are the workers for this harvest?

ISTM that those who really see Vat II as a break from something problematic, cling to the Paul VI Mass in the vernacular, assuming that this what the Council really wanted. In fact I recently read a post from a liturgist stating this in different words. That said, of course this Mass can be abrogated. Every other Missal has been, to my knowledge, except for the 1962 (which I'm guessing was a fortunate oversight). In any event one cannot argue for the Latin language on practical grounds except that the Missal exists in Latin and all vernacular translations, like all translations, are like looking at a beloved friend through a dirty window. For many the window is the only means of viewing that friend. Learning Latin would be the Windex needed ;-) that few would be willing to use, I'm afraid. Finally, for me, if we were to follow Jackson's assertions about mixing languages, all vernacular liturgies would be bereft of the finest settings of the Ordinary known to man.

I did compose the new Gloria in English, but only because it is now a good translation. Otherwise I will always prefer Latin. Why? Well for one it Is and will always be timeless and unchanging and it is universal. All nations sing Latin masses. Why limit myself to English?

BTW... Those other "ancient" languages are NOT universal! ;-}

Latin is beautiful, and should not disappear, but it is not necessarily superior to any other language, even English, in liturgy

And that's one place where we Latins disagree with you Greeks. Latin is the official language of the Church, and also has the right to pride of place over the vernacular in the Latin Church's ordinary form of liturgy.