I just heard on the news that the Pope has decreed that Mass will return to Latin. I was wondering how people feel about this. Does anyone know the thinking behind it? Do you feel it is a backward or forward step? If you are Catholic will you now try to learn Latin for Mass? Would love to hear others thoughts. MW
There is more to this story than a simple argument over language. In the original Latin mass, there are prayers for the conversion of Jews, and I think this is what many people, both Jewish and Catholic, find disturbing. ARTICLE
i am sorry, but this changing language just for the sake of tradition stinks of arrogance and retardedness. and the pope is supposed to be a leader? he is being a very poor example to christianity. he should serve his fellow christian members and not the other way around. i mean, Jesus Himself washed the feet of His disciples. when has anyone ever seen the pope do THAT! oh well, not much we can do about that, right? and everyone has eyes but they won't see and everyone has ears, but we just won't listen to reason.
I understand Latin so it is not a problem... Then again, I do not listen to mass, so again it is not a problem. Such a great old way of tongue it shouldn't be allowed to perish, and should be looked after, like history A quote from Cicero, If I may.. "Assiduus usus uni rei deditus et ingenium et artem saepe vincit."
No it was kinda meant to be ironic... Has nothing to do with intelligence... Here English translation.... "Constant pratice devoted to one subject often outdues both intelligence and skill" Practice makes perfect... To the laymen.
I have no idea what the point of the mass in Latin is. Okay, maybe to please the ultras. But what's the point of pleasing these people? If I were a catholic, I wouldn't want to have them as a part of my community : wanting to have the mass in Latin goes hand in hand (usually) with other opinions that are often reactionary. It's not about the mass being in Latin itself.. it's about the people who want the mass to be in Latin. God! Vatican 2 was FORTY years ago. Move on. Whatever could be the spiritual point of having mass in Latin? Maybe there IS one, but I fail to see it. Besides, masses could be celebrated in Latin before... the priest (I think) only had to ask permission from the Archbishop (or from the Vatican, not sure). hear, hear. as for the thing about the Jews... isn't it possible to just take it out of the mass and that's it?
I did a little searching around the Catholic blogosphere and it looks like this has been taken a little out of context. It's not that the English mass is being replaced, but that the Latin mass, which had been forbidden, is being allowed for those communities that want it who had unfairly had it taken away. In that light I don't really think the references to Judaism are so heinous. There's nothing enforced to say that they should be said. And most religions have some triumphalist liturgy, including Judaism. See the Aleinu player. As one catholic blogger pointed out, there are other triumphalist references in Catholic liturgy as well. In her opinion there needs to be a change in those words too, but to me as a Jew it's really not an issue. Jewish-Catholic relations are pretty good. I don't see that changing. Michael Lerner had a very different view but it was only sent via e-mail, followed by affirming comments by a Catholic and then discussion and disagreement from people who didn't like what he originally said. But unfortunately it doesn't seem to have been published to the web, just e-mailed. If anyone would like a copy let me know and I'll fwd it to you. Dauer
I’m not a fan of triumphalist stuff wherever it may be but as Dauer intimates, I’m sure there’s a lot of it about. I don’t think the British national anthem is too right on, is it? That aside, I think it’s good to have it in the language of the people, so that they can understand the literal meaning of it, but it surely is also good for it to be in the “original” Latin language. I’m not a Catholic but I think Latin and Mass are meant for each other. You can still appreciate (for want of a better word) something like this without understanding the literal meaning of the words, I believe. I don’t understand a word of Tibetan, but I find Tibetan Buddhist chant profoundly moving. Such connections transcend words. s.
Hi Muslimwoman, It's a step, and it may be a forward step. It doesn't matter what language the Mass is said in as long as the priest understands it. Facing away from the congregation can also be helpful to the priest, aiding concentration. There has been a change in the response recently too. Didyouknow the phrase "hocus pocus" comes form the Latin Mass? God Bless, Br.Bruce
Hi Everyone I had no particular view about the subject, I was just surprised when I heard it on the news, as so many men died trying to translate mass so the 'ordinary' people could understand it and feel more a part of their faith. So I suppose it saddened me as it felt like a step backward for the 'common man'. I also, of course, thought back to the tactless speach writer who made the Islam reference in the Pope's speach not so long ago. So I guess I was just wondering in what direction the Vatican is currently heading. Br. Bruce - I didn't know where hocus pocus came from, do you know how this came about? Salaam
Hi Muslimwoman — InLove — Before anything else it's worth noting an anti-Christian agenda at the highest levels of the BBC (a fact they themselves have been obliged to acknowledge). Dauer's comments are by far the most balanced here, and put the BBC to shame. The point raised by them highlights one line, in one liturgy, said once a year. If the Jews are offended, I have little doubt it would be removed, what it says is hardly 'central' to the Christian mysteries. The BBC are good at this sort of thing. Remember they went through 90 minutes of a speech to draw out one comment, and then sent that one out-of-context extract to every Islamic news agency asking for a response. Hardly fair or responsible — a nun was shot dead on account of it. +++ Allow me a personal reflection on the point at hand: I feel it neither a backward nor forward step — rather the recovery of a forgotten treasure of Catholicism, so that's no bad thing — the Pope is simply giving back something that was wrongly denied. The issue of 'understanding' depends whether one's understanding is entirely rationally based. many Catholics 'understand' the Mass said in the vernacular, but whether they understand what that means, is another matter (I doubt it, they are not theologians) — but they do understand what it signifies. For some centuries the mass in Latin did not seem to debarr the common folk — it seems that today, unless we are served everything on a plate with no necessity to think for ourselves, it's just too much hard work... Curiously, I read most of the contrary comments on this thread as ignorant of the reality, and therefore reactionary, especially when many aren't Catholic, and haven't even bothered (like Dauer) to understand the issue. The BBC insinuate triumphalism, and everyone takes the bait. Lastly, on the Mass itself — As I have indicated, the Mass is a Rite, and a Mystery, two things that modernism and relativism have always sought to do away with. The modern Catholic mass is in some danger of becoming a celebration of self, as exemplified by the 'happy-clappy' celebration which too often implies to others 'hey look, we're Christians, isn't it fantastic!' — something that is in fact utterly triumphalist way beyond the Latin Rite. I doubt the Apostles were 'happy-clappy' at the Last Supper, so I'm not sure where that example came from. The symbolism of the Mass is dreadful, and shows just how bankrupt the modernising element had become. In the Old Style the priest and people faced the Tabernacle, all equal before God, the priest simply fulfilling a function on behalf of the community, of which he is a member. The whole Mass is an approach to 'sliding back the veil' and opening the Tabernacle itself was a symbol of the rolling away of the stone. Now the priest faces the people, and inescapably becomes the star of the show, people look at him, not the tabernacle. In some churches the tabernacle does not even occupy the central place behind the altar. God is relegated to 'offstage' where in the Latin Rite God is very much 'center stage'. The Mass has been said in Latin for some 1500+ years. It's been said in the vernacular for some 40-odd. It's got a long way to go, and a lot of improvements to make, before it comes anywhere near trhe Mystery and majesty of the Latin Rite — but if done properly, and with due reverence, it will stand alongside the other. That was what Vatican II wanted, after all. Thomas
HI All--Peace.... Thomas, when I posted that BBC article, I did realize that it could be somehow biased, but I wasn't sure. I am still not too familiar with the political leanings of news organizations around the world--I've only recently been able to sort out the U.S. sources and identify which elements they endorse (the way news is reported today is a sad thing, for the most part,IMO. There is always an agenda of some kind, it seems, and I am so sorry to hear about the nun who was murdered as a result of this sort of mindset.) The article is about 3 months old, as well, so I know that the debate has progressed, hopefully toward the point of reconciliation. And I noticed that the message board comments after the article were mostly pretty negative and perhaps I should have done a cut and paste or something in order to leave those out. They don't represent my views. I think that the mass should be conducted in Latin because there are elements contained therein which I imagine cannot be fully expressed in another language. However, as you pointed out, there is also a great value in observing and participating in the service in the vernacular. Everyone is different, and some have the need to hear the words in a way they can better understand. (I think I am being rather clumsy about expressing my thoughts this morning--need coffee, maybe--but hopefully you understand what I mean. ) And I think it is so encouraging that there seems to be a willingness to edit some things in the Latin for the sake of harmony, brotherhood, and Truth. By the way, your comment regarding the fact that the people and the clergy all faced the Tabernacle in the Old Style really hit home with me, even though I could not be considered a Catholic by Catholic standards. But in my experience in the music ministry of several Protestant Traditions, I have come to appreciate it when I am not "center stage". In some denominations, the singers and/or musicians deliver the music from a balcony in the back of the church or sometimes from behind a partition of some kind. I love this approach when available. It really does help me focus on God, and the people in the congregation aren't distracted by anything I might do (and I can take off my shoes and cause no controversy! ). Well, I could talk all day about this, but I will spare you the ramble. InPeace, InLove
Hi Muslimwoman — I think that is the line promoted by propagandists — no-one died for translating the mass, and the translation of Scripture was rarely done so people could 'feel more a part of their faith'. The agenda was political and nationalistic. Interestingly, when the Protestants took control, altars and churches were stripped, and the net outcome was a outbreak of pagan practice across the Protestant continent. People like to portray the Catholics as the villains in this case, but in fact the statistics show that far more women were burnt for witchcraft in Protestant states than in Catholic ones. When the ban on stripped churches was lifted briefly, all the sacred relics, ritual items, altar cloths, sculptures, paintings, hangings etc., miraculously re-appeared — they had been stored away by the faithful in the hope of a return. When the ban returned, they vanished away again. Meanwhile in Switzerland, heart of Protestant Calvinism, a woman was burnt to death for placing flowers on her husband's grave. When the Protestants came to power, the last thing they had in mind was the rights of the common man — look up Martin Luther's savage repression of 'the peasant's revolt'. There are many who would view the step as backwards, not forwards. Before the Reformation the 'common man' held some certainty in his faith, after it everything he held sacred was torn from his grip and thrown away. We can all look back in hindsight, and judge the actions of the 1500s by the morality of today — but if one looks objectively, and openly, the picture is radically different, and as ever, the 'common man' suffered most. No doubt my view is pro-Catholic, and so should be received as such, but people rarely bother to question where their 'assumed knowledge' comes from, and the Protestant PR machine has had centuries to insinuate its own innocence and catholic guilt. Thomas
Hi Thomas, Personally, I took the reference to triumphalism from dauer, not the BBC, so I don't think I was taking any bait. I also do not see my comment therefore as being "reactionary." I am also happy to say that if I was a Catholic I think it would be good if I could attend Mass in my own language as well as in Latin. s.
