Translate

Tuesday, April 9, 2019

WOULD IMPOSING AN ALL LATIN MASS ON AN UNSUSPECTING PARISH DRIVE CATHOLICS AWAY, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO HAVE HUNG IN THERE AND COMPOSE THE 5% TO 35% OF CATHOLICS WHO STILL ATTEND MASS?

 

YES!


There can never be an a suppression of the vernacular Mass without dire consequences for almost every parish in the vernacular speaking world.

An incremental restoration of Latin would be less jarring. But there has to be a good reason for doing so and it has to be a top-down decision from the Holy See.

Pope Benedict would never suppress the vernacular altogether, but His Holiness modeled at the Vatican what this could look like. I believe in the last several years of his active papacy, Pope Benedict always prayed the canon, and Benedict used the variety there are, in Latin. He wanted the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei in Latin.

If changes of this kind are made, there has to be a thorough catechesis.

Pope Francis has not continued Pope Benedict's trajectory of liturgical renewal and has no logic as to why he uses Latin sometimes and the vernacular at other times.

For example when I was on sabbatical in Rome, I attended an international Mass with Pope Francis with a huge number of international priests. The Mass was in the Square and packed. One would have thought the Holy Father would have used Latin but no it was in Italian.

I understand Italian but was confounded that the Holy Father would not have used Latin for a multi-lingual congregation.

But alas.

22 comments:

TJM said...

For starters, the clergy should top hiding from the people the fact that Sacrosanctum Concilium expressly demands the Latin Mass be preserved and that the pastor TEACH the congregation to chant in Latin, the parts of the Mass proper to them. I have NEVER heard this from a pulpit at an OF Mass, ever. What are the clergy, a bunch of sneaks? Cheating us of our heritage? If the clergy were honest and let the folks know that this is what the Council called for, there would likely be a lot less fuss, if some Latin were to be introduced into ONE (not all) of the OF Masses on Sunday once the folks were aware of these "inconvenient facts." It is time for the clergy to grow up. They might just attract back some who have fled the scene since the new scene clearly isn't packing them in.

Anonymous said...

"For starters, the clergy should top hiding from the people the fact that Sacrosanctum Concilium expressly demands the Latin Mass be preserved and that the pastor TEACH the congregation to chant in Latin, the parts of the Mass proper to them."

No one is "hiding" anything. SC is available online, at Barnes and Noble, libraries, etc.

SC does not "demand" anything, including the use of Latin.

Pastors will lose their priestly identity, per Fr. McDonald, if they are reduced to teaching languages along with multiple other non-priestly functions.

Anonymous said...

......because the Latin language is a unifier of all cultures and nationalities.

Mike

Dan said...

"Would imposing the Latin mass on parishes drive people away?"

Not going to happen. This presupposes that there are any Catholics left in power with the power to impose.

TJM said...

Anonymous K,

Thanks for the laughs. 99% of the congregants would not even know that Sacrosanctum Concilium exists, let alone what it says, unless they were told. So I think my point is valid. And you are dead wrong, as usual. SC requires the pastor to do what I said, just like Canon Law requires seminarians to learn Latin. The fact that these mandates are ignored, does not diminish what they state. In my opinion, a priest who knows no Latin nor uses it, is pretty much deficient in terms of priestly identity, if they are a Latin Rite priest. You really are a real piece of work - clericalism on steroids.

John Nolan said...

'An incremental restoration of Latin would be less jarring. But there has to be a good reason for doing so, and it has to be a top-down decision from the Holy See.'

What is called the Ordinary Form of the Mass may be celebrated either in Latin or in an approved vernacular translation. When celebrated in Latin the Scripture readings are usually in the vernacular. When celebrated in the vernacular the musical settings are often in Latin. This has been the case for the last fifty years, and popes from Paul VI onwards, while recognizing the usefulness of the vernacular, have encouraged the retention of Latin in the new rites.





Anonymous said...

TJM, No, your point is NOT valid. You said the clergy were "hiding" what SC says. Since SC is readily available to anyone who wants to read it, it is INVALID to say that anyone is "hiding" it.

Regarding your misreading of what SC "demands," "36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." Read on, brother: "3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language."

Priestly identity has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a priest knows or uses Latin. If you can cite the relevant official teaching stating otherwise, please do so.

TJM said...

Anonymous K aka Clericalism on Steroids,.

The Catholic laity is NOT trained to read or interpret Church documents. You know that and I know that. Do you really want to make an argument that the laity SHOULD have known about SC and what it says? That would be like asking an American citizen to be aware of intricate federal regulations on a particular law because they are available online or in libraries.

The Catholic laity, trusted, to their detriment, that the clergy would honestly inform them of the actual changes called for by the Council on the Liturgy. They were not. They were lied to. There was NOTHING in the Conciliar documents, nor the debates,that Latin was to be jettisoned, that sanctuaries were required to be re-ordered for the vanity of the clergy, that Holy Communion was to be distributed in the hand, or any of the other crap, liturgical "progressives" shoved down our throats. As a matter of fact, a deceased friend of mine who was a peritus at the Council told me years later that all he expected in terms of the reform of the Mass was that the changeable prayers might be permitted to be said in the vernacular but that the Ordinary of the Mass would remain in Latin. He said the Council Fathers NEVER envisioned that Gregory Chant or polyphony would be abandoned.

But SC did say the Latin Mass was to be preserved and the laity was to learn to sing the chants, in Latin, proper to them. My parish was doing just that BEFORE the Council. SC did not say that the Latin Mass was to become a museum piece like Bugnini and his ilk desired.But a legion of liars, aided and abetted by the secular press, pushed a liturgical agenda which has brought us to where we are today: empty pews and closing parishes. Are you proud of that legacy? I would be embarrassed and humiliated that my views on Liturgy were so erraneous in practice.

If as a Latin Rite priest you are required by Canon Law to learn Latin in the seminary, then your identity as a Latin Rite priest is tied to that. St. John XXIII issued Veterum Sapientia on the very eve of the Council stating that "Latin is the language which joins the Church of today" and required the clergy to be competent in Latin. Has Veterum Sapientia been abrogated? If you can find no authority to that effect, that is official Church teaching on the subject. Maybe the simpletons you deal with accept you as the big man on the campus, but I do not. In my view, you are a tired member of the status quo failing your flock. You are like the Bourbons, you have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

Anonymous said...

I liked pope Benedict's approach to the Mass, from the Altar arrangement to the ways he recommended Latin be used. I do think an abrupt change would cause some parishioners to depart. I also think Latin has become an academic specialty among the ordained. While most should be able to recite in the language, few have the advanced understanding of languages to translate or interpret texts in that language. Fr. Z is one of those specialists.

Timothy said...

anon conveniently left out that where ever the no is done entirely in the vernacular for "pastoral reasons" the bishop is REQUIRED to be teaching the faithful to say their responses in Latin. Why?? because CS already indicated earlier that at the no mass the people are to make their responses in LATIN!!! so don't play dumb.

Timothy said...

anon conveniently left out that where ever the no is done entirely in the vernacular for "pastoral reasons" the bishop is REQUIRED to be teaching the faithful to say their responses in Latin. Why?? because CS already indicated earlier that at the no mass the people are to make their responses in LATIN!!! so don't play dumb.

John Nolan said...

Relevant official teaching: Canon 249, CIC 1983.

Also see SC article 54. It is this to which TJM was referring. Read on, brother.

Anonymous said...

"The Catholic laity is NOT trained to read or interpret Church documents. You know that and I know that. Do you really want to make an argument that the laity SHOULD have known about SC and what it says?"

No, I am not making that argument - at all.

I am saying that your claim, "...the clergy should top hiding from the people the fact that Sacrosanctum Concilium expressly demands the Latin Mass..." is false. (I would also add that there is no "demand," but I digress.)

SC is available to anyone who cares to read it. No one, including clergy is "hiding" it.

"There was NOTHING in the Conciliar documents, nor the debates, that Latin was to be jettisoned,..."

SC does give authority for implementing the reforms to "competent terrirorial ecclesiastical authority" who were "to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used."

SC does give them that authority, doesn't it? Yes, it does.

Not only are the local authorities to make the determination, but "their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See."

Are you saying that the local decrees regarding "whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used" in, say, the USA, have NOT been approved by the Apostolic See?

TJM said...

Anonymous the Koward,

SO in other words, you place the burden on the laity (the unwashed masses the clergy is trying to "protect") to know and understand the Conciliar documents. LOL. You obviously failed logic. I was around then. And no member of the clergy explained any of the decrees, and notably did not discuss the Conciliar decrees on the retention and use of Latin and chant. It was all: change, change, change. Half truths are lies. Liberals claim to be for transparency and openness. But with liturgical matters, transparency flies out the window. You hide the ball. Your mealy-mouthed answer is what I would expect from you. Also no refutation of Veterum Sapientia or Canon law in regards to Latin. Epic fail.

Anonymous said...

"SO in other words, you place the burden on the laity..."

No, I am not placing any burden on anyone.

I am saying, for the last time, that your accusation that clergy hid something from the people is patently false since SC is available to anyone, anytime.

You enjoy blaming clergy for the same reason Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

TJM, please don't call priests or anyone else names. Don't deal with the person making a comment, just comment on what the person says with cogent rebuttals. There is no need to insult. I deleted your comment. If you want to rewrite it without insulting names or denigration of the person making the comment, feel free to do so.

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

Understood, but clergy using the cover of Anonymous to make snarky or absurd comments is not cricket. Perhaps you should consider dealing with that.

The clergy at the time of SC was highly selective in what they told their congregations. They engaged in half truths which amounts to a lie. They cherry picked the parts of SC that favored massive changes to the Mass and chose not to report those portions of SC which maintained Latin, gregorian chant, etc. It is an absurd argument to make that the laity should have known this and that copies of SCs were readily available.

John Nolan said...

This ding-dong exchange between TJM and MJK is generating more heat than light. For the sake of clarity and sanity, can we note the following?

1. The delegation to competent territorial ecclesiastical authority 'to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular is to be used' (de usu et modo linguae vernaculae statuere) does not give such authorities the right to suppress celebration in Latin. To argue that it does is contradicted by SC itself, the teaching and example of recent popes, and actual practice world-wide.

2. Paul VI decreed in 1972 that the Graduale Romanum be revised to accommodate the new liturgical books, without losing any of the treasure of Gregorian Chant (nullus textus deperderetur thesauri authentici cantus gregoriani). Paul cited SC 114-117. The revised Graduale was published in 1974 and remains normative for the reformed rite.

3. In 1975 the same pontiff sent all the bishops a booklet of simple chants for the faithful to learn. Called 'Jubilate Deo', it was widely circulated, and is still used. Again, Paul cited Vatican II (SC 54).

4. The 1983 Code of Canon Law requires candidates for the priesthood to have a good understanding of Latin (linguam latinam bene colleant).

These are not my opinions; they are plain truths and easily verifiable.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

Thank you.

Question. In England did priests tell the whole story of SC? I NEVER heard in the US a priest stating that the Latin Mass is to be preserved or that the laity is to learn to sing, in Latin, the parts of the Mass proper to them? It seems disingenuous to leave this information out.

I recall Jubilate Deo because I was a volunteer in choirs and a cantor. This was NEVER widely implemented in the US. Most bishops and pastors simply ignored it. I also know priests who never studied a word of Latin in the seminary and yet their bishops ordained them to the priesthood with this glaring deficiency. Perhaps things were not as bad in England as they were in the US.

John Nolan said...

TJM

In 1964, when the vernacular was first introduced, most of the laity could indeed sing, in Latin, those parts of the Mass which pertained to them. This was due to the fact that most parishes could manage a Missa Cantata on Sundays. Granted, the Propers often had to be psalm-toned and there was an over-reliance on the Missa de Angelis and Credo III. But priests had been transitional subdeacons and deacons in seminary and knew how to sing the Mass, and there would be an experienced MC who would train the servers.

The change almost overnight to a vernacular liturgy which was said, not sung, and accompanied by hymns, meant that by 1967 this tradition had been lost in most parishes. Add to this the then fashionable changes in orientation, vestments etc. and the Mass of 1967 bore little resemblance to that of three years earlier.

Ironically, when the Novus Ordo was launched, the English bishops envisaged that it would be celebrated in Latin as well as English. In the 1970s and 1980s it was not too difficult to find a sung Latin Mass, and not just in London. However, then as now, the geographical spread was uneven.

I don't think seminary formation was as bad as that endured by Fr McDonald, but it left a lot to be desired, and traditionally-minded priests had to keep their heads down and dissemble. As late as the 1990s ordinands at the Venerable English College in Rome were monitored carefully lest they develop unhealthy tendencies like attending Latin Masses. One said: 'They didn't spot the paedophiles. They were too busy watching us.'

I think that one difference between England and the US is that the loss of Latin was more widely resented over here. After all, the dominant state Church, with its English services, occupied all the historic Catholic buildings and effectively pushed us to the margins. Our Latin liturgy was an important part of our Catholic identity.

Colin Mawby, a distinguished composer of choral music, was Master of Music at Westminster Cathedral at the time of the Council. He recalls reading in the Daily Telegraph about a possible vernacular Mass. His first thought was 'Well, it won't happen here.'

TJM said...

John Nolan,

Thank you for your response. It does sound like there was not the hostility to Latin that one found in some places in the US. The hatred of Latin by some priests and laity is mind numbing. It's hating your heritage. I just never understood it.

One of the bright lights in the US was Monsignor Schuler at St. Agnes Church in St. Paul's Minnesota. He was a fine Church musician and he never caved into the crazies. Although he did move to the Novus Ordo when he had to, it was all in Latin and the music was magnificent. I believe he kept the flame alive for traditional Roman Catholic worship and was an inspiration for younger generations of priests who did not share the questionable liturgical bent of their elders.

As a matter of fact, my new pastor at my lake community in Indiana, sent himself to St. John Cantius in Chicago to learn the EF which he now offers once a month. Brick by brick as they say.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

If you are not familiar with Monsignor Schuler, you might find the following article on his life interesting:

https://adoremus.org/2007/05/15/Monsignor-Richard-Schuler/