Latin Mass Discussion

katydid

MOD NOTE

Thread split from Best Catholic Parish thread.

hinault wrote: »

I attend 10.30 Mass on Sundays at Harrington St. whenever possible:)

The incense, the singing, the Tridentine Mass offered, the diverse congregation, all make 10.30 a special time.

It is really great to see how the Tridentine Mass is becoming more accessible for parishioners in other parishes too.

It is in English or Latin?

uck51js9zml2yt

katydid wrote: »

It is in English or Latin?

I assume Latin, but can't understand why people who wouldn't necessarily know Latin would want to go.

katydid

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

I assume Latin, but can't understand why people who wouldn't necessarily know Latin would want to go.

I'm curious; if it's Latin, it's hardly accessible.

Delirium

katydid wrote: »

I'm curious; if it's Latin, it's hardly accessible.

possibly meant accessible in the logistical sense.

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

possibly meant accessible in the logistical sense.

Probably meant accessible in the sense of not being understood by the majority.

Delirium

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

Probably meant accessible in the sense of not being understood by the majority.

maybe there's some crossed wires, but I figured katydid was questioning hinaults use of the term accessible, i.e. " becoming more accessible for parishioners in other parishes too.", and offer a possible explanation.

katydid

Delirium wrote: »

maybe there's some crossed wires, but I figured katydid was questioning hinaults use of the term accessible, i.e. " becoming more accessible for parishioners in other parishes too.", and offer a possible explanation.

Well, I do know, or think I know, what Hinault meant - that more people could access the Tridentine mass. What I was getting at was that it's hardly accessible in the first place if it's no accessible because of language.

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

maybe there's some crossed wires, but I figured katydid was questioning hinaults use of the term accessible, i.e. " becoming more accessible for parishioners in other parishes too.", and offer a possible explanation.

OK get you.
I reckon his thinking is that the tridentine rite is getting more common place and therefore more accessible to people.
I assume Katy is saying its not really accessible due to the language barrier.
Different sorts of accessible

That was the whole "problem" with the bible being printed in English and therefore able to be read by ploughman and king and why the translators were persecuted and put to death over it.
The church didn't want the common people understanding scripture and being able to question the clerics over their heresy.

Benny_Cake

katydid wrote: »

Well, I do know, or think I know, what Hinault meant - that more people could access the Tridentine mass. What I was getting at was that it's hardly accessible in the first place if it's no accessible because of language.

I'd imagine that anyone attending a Tridentine mass at present would probably be very familiar with the liturgy (even if they don't speak the language)!

katydid

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd imagine that anyone attending a Tridentine mass at present would probably be very familiar with the liturgy (even if they don't speak the language)!

Not much use if you don't understand what's going on.

hinault

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd imagine that anyone attending a Tridentine mass at present would probably be very familiar with the liturgy (even if they don't speak the language)!

Correct.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

Correct.

Not much use, though.

uck51js9zml2yt

katydid wrote: »

Not much use, though.

You beat me to it

hinault

Delirium wrote: »

" becoming more accessible for parishioners in other parishes too.", and offer a possible explanation.

The wider availability of the Tridentine Mass so that Catholics, more Catholics, can access the Mass of the Ages.

This link might help you if you're interested in attending

http://www.latinmassireland.com/

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

The wider availability of the Tridentine Mass so that Catholics, more Catholics, can access the Mass of the Ages.

This link might help you if you're interested in attending

http://www.latinmassireland.com/

Still not much point if it can't be understood.
But that was why the RC hierarchy persecuted and put to death those who dared translate the bible into English.
They didn't want it to be understood by the ordinary person in the field.

hinault

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

Still not much point if it can't be understood.

You didn't open the link, comrade Chloe Fancy Quintessence.

From the link that you did not open.
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.latinmassireland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/The-Text-of-the-Mass.pdf&hl=en_US

katydid

hinault wrote: »

You didn't open the link, comrade tatranska.

From the link that you did not open.
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.latinmassireland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/The-Text-of-the-Mass.pdf&hl=en_US

Or you could have just answered the question; "yes, it's in Latin, which most people don't understand"...

Benny_Cake

katydid wrote: »

Not much use if you don't understand what's going on.

I'd imagine that it's a concession to those who have an attachment to the Latin Mass rather than a means of outreach. Preaching to the converted, more or less.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

I'm curious; if it's Latin, it's hardly accessible.

That depends on what you're trying to access.

If what you're trying to access is the meaning of the words employed, yes, you'll need a missal, which you don't need if you go to a mass said in the vernacular. (Though, having said that, lots of people attending vernacular services in various churches employ missals, prayer-books and the like. So I don't think the slightly greater need for such at a Latin mass is a huge barrier.)

But, let's face it, how many people go to mass because they want to access the meaning of the words employed? Most regular massgoers are intimately familiar with the words employed, whatever language they're in. They're there to participate in a significant ritual, to experience connection, to have a sense of the transcendent. I don't see that the use of Latin is a barrier there and, for some people, it could be a positive bonus.

For the record, I think it's fairly clear that hinault was using "accessible" in the physical sense - What time is it celebrated? Where is it celebrated? How close is that? Is it easy to get there?

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

That depends on what you're trying to access.

If what you're trying to access is the meaning of the words employed, yes, you'll need a missal, which you don't need if you go to a mass said in the vernacular. (Though, having said that, lots of people attending vernacular services in various churches employ missals, prayer-books and the like. So I don't think the slightly greater need for such at a Latin mass is a huge barrier.)

But, let's face it, how many people go to mass because they want to access the meaning of the words employed? Most regular massgoers are intimately familiar with the words employed, whatever language they're in. They're there to participate in a significant ritual, to experience connection, to have a sense of the transcendent. I don't see that the use of Latin is a barrier there and, for some people, it could be a positive bonus.

For the record, I think it's fairly clear that hinault was using "accessible" in the physical sense - What time is it celebrated? Where is it celebrated? How close is that? Is it easy to get there?

Of course the ritual and the experience is important, but surely the meaning of the words is important. Why on earth would you make it more difficult on yourself by having a translation of the words in front of you, instead of experiencing them directly? Would that not interfere with the experience of the ceremony?

Peregrinus

Well, no, is the honest if slightly surprising answer. I've been to masses celebrated in languages that I do not speak. The scripture readings excepted, I knew exactly what they were saying. I didn't find that the use of a foreign language interfered with the experience.

The other point to bear in mind, of course, is that almost everybody who attends the Tridentine mass at St Kevins passes by some other church, celebrating the vernacular mass, in order to get there. Clearly, they're not finding the use of Latin an interference or a barrier; if they were, they wouldn't be there.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, no, is the honest if slightly surprising answer. I've been to masses celebrated in languages that I do not speak. The scripture readings excepted, I knew exactly what they were saying. I didn't find that the use of a foreign language interfered with the experience.

The other point to bear in mind, of course, is that almost everybody who attends the Tridentine mass at St Kevins passes by some other church, celebrating the vernacular mass, in order to get there. Clearly, they're not finding the use of Latin an interference or a barrier; if they were, they wouldn't be there.

I'm astonished you'd know exactly what they were saying in different languages; I understand that you might generally follow, say, Romance languages, where the words are relatively familiar, but if you had to follow a liturgy in Polish or Chinese, I can't imagine it would be that easy. I know that being familiar with a liturgy would help you to figure out what was going on, but it can't be the same as directly via your native language.

Perhaps the people bypassing the churches who use the vernacular want to experience the liturgy through Latin for whatever reason, even if it is less comprehensible to them.

Thinkingaboutit

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

OK get you.
I reckon his thinking is that the tridentine rite is getting more common place and therefore more accessible to people.
I assume Katy is saying its not really accessible due to the language barrier.
Different sorts of accessible

That was the whole "problem" with the bible being printed in English and therefore able to be read by ploughman and king and why the translators were persecuted and put to death over it.
The church didn't want the common people understanding scripture and being able to question the clerics over their heresy.

That's a very contentious, in fact false, statement. Douay-Rheims from 1582 is just one translation of the Vulgate. The medieval man or woman knowing the Rosary or related devotions would have more grasp of scripture than most moderns. Luther's Bible edited out the Epistle of James, the Apocrypha, anything that failed to match his choice on the matter of the Bible. Calling the Faith, heresy, is well, your opinion.

The Mass is translated on the right hand side of the Missal. The Novus Ordo is problematic, without even considering the claim that Abp Bugini, in charge of the New order of mass, was a Freemason. He always denied the claim, but Pope Paul VI was quick in exiling a Secretary of the Liturgy since 1948, to a minor Middle Eastern deputy ambassadorship, unrelated to his expertise in liturgy. ICEL compounded the issues with the New Mass. Pope Benedict did at least correct the glaring errors in translation.

uck51js9zml2yt

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

That's a very contentious, in fact false, statement. Douay-Rheims from 1582 is just one translation of the Vulgate. The medieval man or woman knowing the Rosary or related devotions would have more grasp of scripture than most moderns. Luther's Bible edited out the Epistle of James, the Apocrypha, anything that failed to match his choice on the matter of the Bible. Calling the Faith, heresy, is well, your opinion.

The Mass is translated on the right hand side of the Missal. The Novus Ordo is problematic, without even considering the claim that Abp Bugini, in charge of the New order of mass, was a Freemason. He always denied the claim, but Pope Paul VI was quick in exiling a Secretary of the Liturgy since 1948, to a minor Middle Eastern deputy ambassadorship, unrelated to his expertise in liturgy. ICEL compounded the issues with the New Mass. Pope Benedict did at least correct the glaring errors in translation.

Its grand diverting my post to rosaries and devotional material. Something i never referred to.
History can't be rewriten (well it can!). The facts are that the Roman Catholic church persecuted and put to death those who dared translatecthw bible into English.
You really need to read real church history Rather than the sanitised RC versions.
European church history is a litany of accounts were those who spoke against Catholicism were driven out and put to death as heretics.

katydid

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

That's a very contentious, in fact false, statement. Douay-Rheims from 1582 is just one translation of the Vulgate. The medieval man or woman knowing the Rosary or related devotions would have more grasp of scripture than most moderns. Luther's Bible edited out the Epistle of James, the Apocrypha, anything that failed to match his choice on the matter of the Bible. Calling the Faith, heresy, is well, your opinion.

The Mass is translated on the right hand side of the Missal. The Novus Ordo is problematic, without even considering the claim that Abp Bugini, in charge of the New order of mass, was a Freemason. He always denied the claim, but Pope Paul VI was quick in exiling a Secretary of the Liturgy since 1948, to a minor Middle Eastern deputy ambassadorship, unrelated to his expertise in liturgy. ICEL compounded the issues with the New Mass. Pope Benedict did at least correct the glaring errors in translation.

The medieval man or woman knew the parts of scripture the church wanted them to know. They encouraged the telling and retelling of the simple biblical stories that reminded the faithful of the fate of sinners and encouraged them to imitate the good role models. They didn't get that from the rosary or devotions.

They certainly weren't encouraged to read all of the bible, and examine the text constructively or critically.

What's problematical about Novus Ordo, specifically?

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

The medieval man or woman knew the parts of scripture the church wanted them to know. They encouraged the telling and retelling of the simple biblical stories that reminded the faithful of the fate of sinners and encouraged them to imitate the good role models. They didn't get that from the rosary or devotions.

They certainly weren't encouraged to read all of the bible, and examine the text constructively or critically.

Well, the medieval man or woman typically couldn't read. And, even if literate, couldn't possibly afford a manuscript bible.

All this starts to change with the invention of printing.

There's a common trope in which Protestant reformers encourage the reading of scripture against an oppressive Catholic church which had always forbidden or discouraged it.

There is relatively little truth in this. What mainly discouraged the reading of scripture in medieval Europe was (a) lack of literacy, and (b) lack of money. Those who could read, and who could afford books, were perfectly free to read the scriptures, and in lots of pious hagiographies from the period are praised for the amount of time they devoted to doing so. One of the first books to be printed in Europe was the bible (specifically, the Gutenberg bible of 1455). Obviously printers thought there would be a market for bibles, and they were right - it was a great success, commercially speaking

The Gutenberg was in Latin, of course, but at the time anyone who could read, could read Latin. But there were plenty of vernacular translations of the Bible into various languages in the Middle Ages and, while particular translations might be criticised or banned if associated with particular heresies (e.g. the Waldensians) the church in general didn't have a problem with translations. Well before the Protestant reformation, the bible was available in French, Czech, German, Catalan, Castilian, Italian, English, Welsh and many other languages. But in fact it was still mostly read, and mostly printed, in Latin. This wasn't the result of any church or state control; it was a response to market demand.

Probably the increasing affordability (and therefore accessiblity) of the scriptures is one of the factors that led to the Protestant reformation, rather than the other way around. And once the reformation turned into a power struggle, one of the tactics used by both sides was the attempt to control the scriptures, by banning translations that they disapproved of, or producing and circulating translations that they approved of. It's common to present the Catholic church as engaged in this activity; in fact all sides were at it, to one degree or another. For example the English church (then still Catholic) banned Wyclif's bible in the early fifteenth century (too Lollard), but the same church, post-reformation, at various times banned Tyndale's bible (too Lutheran), the Geneva Bible (too Calvinist), the Great Bible and the Douay-Rheims (both too Catholic).

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

I remember going to church on Paddy's day when the mass was in Irish. Couldn't understand a word of it, but I enjoyed it for what it was

Thinkingaboutit

Shame though that there are so few Irish speaking priests. I can say most prayers as Gaeilge, so it's nice when it happens.

Thinkingaboutit

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

Its grand diverting my post to rosaries and devotional material. Something i never referred to.
History can't be rewriten (well it can!). The facts are that the Roman Catholic church persecuted and put to death those who dared translatecthw bible into English.
You really need to read real church history Rather than the sanitised RC versions.
European church history is a litany of accounts were those who spoke against Catholicism were driven out and put to death as heretics.

Again that's false. Translated bibles were available as soon as printed books became affordable. 'Real Church history' to you is likely some Pentecostal ministry's or Conservopedia's potted 'history.' That last sentence needs 'where' not 'were.' We should get back to the topic. Religious polemic is not on topic.

katydid wrote: »

The medieval man or woman knew the parts of scripture the church wanted them to know. They encouraged the telling and retelling of the simple biblical stories that reminded the faithful of the fate of sinners and encouraged them to imitate the good role models. They didn't get that from the rosary or devotions.

They certainly weren't encouraged to read all of the bible, and examine the text constructively or critically.

What's problematical about Novus Ordo, specifically?

The Rosary is based around episodes of the New Testament. I take it you are barely aware of it. A Pentecostal Protestant also is selective in his or her reading of the Bible. Luther edited out the Apocrypha (for Purgatory etc), Epistle of James (for works) and those parts of the Bible contradicting his distortions of the Faith. A Late Medieval work like the Cloud of Unknowing shows an easier grasp of the Bible than most moderns. Widespread illiteracy was a barrier to deep knowledge, but the idea that medieval man was a primitive held in ignorance by the Church is a bad myth.

The Novus Ordo Missae, and more relevantly for this part of the Anglosphere (to deal in facts) the ICEL paraphrasing (not translation really) of Abp Bugini's work saw a filleting of so many parts, so many prayers of the Mass. A person should just compared the two Missals. I might link a comparison later. There are also issues like how the nature of Christ's Sacrifice, it's propriatory nature is not explicit in the text, although the Catechism states that this is the nature of the Sacrifice.

Again religious controversy is not the topic, but rather Catholic parishes.

Manach

Attending mass in other languages still has the same flow and cadence, thus is still a familiar experience. This is even more so in Latin as the words resonate with the same phrases from the earliest times as part the past communities of the Church.

Thinkingaboutit

Manach wrote: »

Attending mass in other languages still has the same flow and cadence, thus is still a familiar experience. This is even more so in Latin as the words resonate with the same phrases from the earliest times as part the past communities of the Church.

Yes. Some parishes overseas or here too on occasion, even St Peter's Basilica, in fact often for the Papal basilica, will have much of the New Mass in Latin.