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.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

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).

I take your point that the average medieval man or woman couldn't read, but my point was that this meant they were fed a diet of simplistic pap, designed to keep them devout and God-fearing. It wasn't, however, just about reading, but about hearing; one of the main points of vernacular worship was to allow the faithful to hear the scriptures in the vernacular.

Of course, once you get into the vernacular and into translations, you run into disputes about which translation, but it's not as if there were no disputes about Latin and other translations from Greek, or different versions of Latin translations...

katydid

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

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.



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.

I am more than aware of what the rosary is - I was subjected to the drone of it often enough in my childhood. It refers to certain episodes from the New Testament, hardly a vast source of knowledge of scripture for those reciting it.

Your "explanation" of your problem with Novus Ordo leaves more questions than it answers.

katydid

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.

The same flow and cadence is good. Knowing what is being said is surely better, where possible? Why deliberately create a barrier when none is necessary?

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

. . . It wasn't, however, just about reading, but about hearing; one of the main points of vernacular worship was to allow the faithful to hear the scriptures in the vernacular.

Yes, good point.

katydid wrote: »

Of course, once you get into the vernacular and into translations, you run into disputes about which translation, but it's not as if there were no disputes about Latin and other translations from Greek, or different versions of Latin translations...

Actually, there were surprisingly few. The Septuagint (for Greek) and the Vulgate (for Latin) were pretty well universally accepted for the thousand years or so before the Reformation, even among Christians who disagreed about virtually everything else. In fact, the Vulgate was so universally accepted that many of the the early Protestant reformers made their vernacular translations from the Vulgate, rather than from the original languages.

I think what happened at the time of the Reformation was that both the scriptures themselves, and the business of scriptural translation, became politicised in a way they hadn't been before. Hence the scramble by civil and ecclesiastical authorities on both sides to claim control over them.

On the plus side, this did result in significant additional resources being devoted to the study and translation of the scriptures by both Catholics and Protestants.

Manach

katydid wrote: »

The same flow and cadence is good. Knowing what is being said is surely better, where possible? Why deliberately create a barrier when none is necessary?

For latin, I'd know some having done a little classics/history. For other unknown languages, it is still the same sacramental ceromony which involves that air of mystery & beauty that is at the heart of Christendom.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, there were surprisingly few. The Septuagint (for Greek) and the Vulgate (for Latin) were pretty well universally accepted for the thousand years or so before the Reformation, even among Christians who disagreed about virtually everything else. In fact, the Vulgate was so universally accepted that many of the the early Protestant reformers made their vernacular translations from the Vulgate, rather than from the original languages.

I think what happened at the time of the Reformation was that both the scriptures themselves, and the business of scriptural translation, became politicised in a way they hadn't been before. Hence the scramble by civil and ecclesiastical authorities on both sides to claim control over them.

On the plus side, this did result in significant additional resources being devoted to the study and translation of the scriptures by both Catholics and Protestants.

Yes, I agree that there were relatively few disputes about translation within the Western church in the thousand years or so leading up to the Reformation. But before that, there was quite a hive of activity, with texts being translated left, right and centre without any co-ordination, and into the various languages of Christendom. Things settled down with the canonisation of scripture, the council of Nicea etc., and remained so for a long while.

You're right about the "politicisation" of the business of scriptural translation - it was bound to happen, because it was an easy and visible target for the demonstration of the new thinking. And nowadays, even in English, there are so many versions of the Bible, you can't just walk into a shop and ask for "a bible"...

katydid

Manach wrote: »

For latin, I'd know some having done a little classics/history. For other unknown languages, it is still the same sacramental ceromony which involves that air of mystery & beauty that is at the heart of Christendom.

Of course there is, but that doesn't answer my question - why deliberately put up a barrier when there is no need? Not everyone has studied classics/history.
While it's possible to follow the gist of things, I like to be able to hear and understand when the priest utters the words of consecration.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

You're right about the "politicisation" of the business of scriptural translation - it was bound to happen, because it was an easy and visible target for the demonstration of the new thinking. . . .

I think it's a bit more than that. Both the reformers and the reactionaries relied heavily on state power, civil power, legal compulsion to try to have their respective views prevail. Thus what started out as an ideological conflict almost immediately became an intensely political one, with each side attempting to prevail not through faith but through the exercise of power. (There were notable individual exceptions on both sides but they were, alas, exceptions.) Thus all points of dispute in the Reformation were almost immediately politicised, and the scriptures are a prime example of this.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

Of course there is, but that doesn't answer my question - why deliberately put up a barrier when there is no need? Not everyone has studied classics/history.
While it's possible to follow the gist of things, I like to be able to hear and understand when the priest utters the words of consecration.

You may like that, but not everybody feels the same way (and the attenders at St. Kevin's clearly don't). So what would be a barrier for you is not a barrier for them.

And, in fairness, when the liturgy is familiar enough to you, you don't need to hear what is being said in order to know what is being said - you've heard it a thousand times before. You may like to hear the words clearly spoken in your vernacular language, but that's a subjective preference. You don't need to hear the words in your own language in order to know what they mean.

hinault

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.

It is a bizzare line of argument to say that because something is conducted in a foreign language that one cannot know or understand what is going on.

A truly bizzare argument. What is the motivation for such an argument?

I remember attending a friends wedding in France. The Mass was offered "en Francaise".
No difficulty at all following the Mass.
Granted following the homily was difficult because my French isn't great.

Then again no two homilies anywhere in the world on a given Sunday will be exactly the same, unlike the Mass.

uck51js9zml2yt

Manach wrote: »

For latin, I'd know some having done a little classics/history. For other unknown languages, it is still the same sacramental ceromony which involves that air of mystery & beauty that is at the heart of Christendom Roman Catholicism.

I've corrected your post

katydid

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

I've corrected your post

Why is what he wrote wrong? Roman Catholicism doesn't have a monopoly on the mystery of the sacrament of the Eucharist

katydid

hinault wrote: »

Yes.

It is a bizzare line of argument to say that because something is conducted in a foreign language that one cannot know or understand what is going on.

A truly bizzare argument. What is the motivation for such an argument?

I remember attending a friends wedding in France. The Mass was offered "en Francaise".
No difficulty at all following the Mass.
Granted following the homily was difficult because my French isn't great.

Then again no two homilies anywhere in the world on a given Sunday will be exactly the same, unlike the Mass.

How is it bizarre? When something is happening in a language you don't understand, you can't understand it in the same way as when it's in a language you do understand. It doesn't mean you can't follow it, but not in the same way.

I'm a language teacher; I've had thirty years of observing how people interact with second and third languages. But you don't need to be a language teacher or a linguist to understand that basic fact.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

You may like that, but not everybody feels the same way (and the attenders at St. Kevin's clearly don't). So what would be a barrier for you is not a barrier for them.

And, in fairness, when the liturgy is familiar enough to you, you don't need to hear what is being said in order to know what is being said - you've heard it a thousand times before. You may like to hear the words clearly spoken in your vernacular language, but that's a subjective preference. You don't need to hear the words in your own language in order to know what they mean.

It IS a barrier, whether they acknowledge it or not. They may have ways of overcoming or ignoring the barrier, because it doesn't matter to them, but it is nevertheless a barrier. On a purely linguistic level.

You can approximate what words mean if you are familiar with them in your own language, but it involves an extra layer of processing to understand them if you have to work through a second language with which you are only vaguely familiar.

uck51js9zml2yt

katydid wrote: »

Why is what he wrote wrong? Roman Catholicism doesn't have a monopoly on the mystery of the sacrament of the Eucharist

I took his post in context.
Plus Protestant churches don't look on the Eucharist in the same way the RCC does.

Peregrinus

It's obviously a barrier to them, if their object is to understand the words spoken.

But, fairly obviously, people participate in religous rituals (or, for that matter, secular rituals) for a variety of purposes, and "understanding the words spoken" may come fairly far down on the list of their purposes, or may not be on the list at all. The sense of connection and/or universality they get from the use of the Latin may mean more to them than immediate understanding of a verbal formula that they are already intimately familiar with. For them, not using Latin could conceivably be more of a barrier to what they are seeking from their participation than using it.

After all, people go to rock concerts where the music is played at a volume which makes discerning the lyrics impossible; they have a good time just the same. People go to operas sung in languages that they do not understand; they experience intense emotions.

There is more to sacramentality and to connection than verbal comprehension, is all I'm saying.

Peregrinus

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

I took his post in context.
Plus Protestant churches don't look on the Eucharist in the same way the RCC does.

Well, they mostly do. Most would certainly put the eucharist at the heart of their worship and their communal experience, and most would affirm the Real Presence. They wouldn't have an understanding of the Real Presence which aligns precisely with the Roman Catholic understanding, but it's close enough. And you could say the same for Orthodox and Oriental Christians.

I'm aware that some Evangelical traditions don't celebrate the eucharist that frequently but, even then, I've always assumed that they would still assert that the Eucharist is central to their lives as Christians, and the sense of themselves as a Christian community.

Am I wrong?

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's obviously a barrier to them, if their object is to understand the words spoken.

But, fairly obviously, people participate in religous rituals (or, for that matter, secular rituals) for a variety of purposes, and "understanding the words spoken" may come fairly far down on the list of their purposes, or may not be on the list at all. The sense of connection and/or universality they get from the use of the Latin may mean more to them than immediate understanding of a verbal formula that they are already intimately familiar with. For them, not using Latin could conceivably be more of a barrier to what they are seeking from their participation than using it.

After all, people go to rock concerts where the music is played at a volume which makes discerning the lyrics impossible; they have a good time just the same. People go to operas sung in languages that they do not understand; they experience intense emotions.

There is more to sacramentality and to connection than verbal comprehension, is all I'm saying.

I agree totally with you; all I'm saying is why put unnecessary barriers up. Of course the barriers are clearly overcome, or rather, compensated for by the holistic experience, but still, why have it in the first place?

Of course, it's not only in the RC church that such a debate exists - there is still a strong cohort in the Anglican church which holds on for dear life to the old style Elizabethan language of the Book of Common Prayer, and in general they are accommodated. In the modern Irish version of the BCP, the old liturgies and language are included, and are used now and then, at the discretion of the minister and/or the congregation. In my parish, they are used on the fifth Sunday of the month, and that seems to keep the language lovers and the older generation, who grew up with the old liturgy and find comfort in it, happy. Even if it can in places be just as much of an alien language as Latin - praying for the "quick and the dead", for example.

However, you do find unsettling instances of people clinging to the old language no matter what, almost on a point of principle, and in these cases the point of the liturgy is forgotten. In one church I occasionally take services in, they are very set in their ways, and insist that, although the new liturgy is used, the Lord's Prayer be said in the old form. One day, I went wild and used the new form, as there were some children in the congregation, and I thought it might be nicer for them. After the service, over coffee, I was "told off" in no uncertain terms by one of the churchwardens - it was disguised as a "I have a bone to pick with you" kind of joke, but it was seriously meant. I smiled and said I thought it would be nice for the children, but the answer was that the traditional form was good enough for her as a child so it was good enough for them...
What was more unsettling was that one of the younger women, in her mid thirties, said that she had been very upset when she heard me leading with the new form, and didn't know what to do, so she just kept on saying the old form.

When people become so entrenched that the form of worship rather than the meaning of worship is more important, that's not good. Getting back to the original issue, if Latin works for some people, fine. They are clearly happy to circumvent the linguistic barrier in the spirit of a different experience. There's room for everyone. My personal opinion is to make worship as accessible as possible by not having barriers such as linguistic ones, but then someone else might consider other things as barriers that I don't see in that way, such as the idea of rubrics and a liturgy instead of a free flowing worship.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, they mostly do. Most would certainly put the eucharist at the heart of their worship and their communal experience, and most would affirm the Real Presence. They wouldn't have an understanding of the Real Presence which aligns precisely with the Roman Catholic understanding, but it's close enough. And you could say the same for Orthodox and Oriental Christians.

I'm aware that some Evangelical traditions don't celebrate the eucharist that frequently but, even then, I've always assumed that they would still assert that the Eucharist is central to their lives as Christians, and the sense of themselves as a Christian community.

Am I wrong?

Tatrasnka is always at pains to point out that he/she isn't a Protestant, so maybe not in a position to answer that question. :-)

katydid

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

I took his post in context.
Plus Protestant churches don't look on the Eucharist in the same way the RCC does.

Says who?