Register me among those who doesn't care if the Latin mass goes the way of the toga.
I'm not a big fan of Latin in the Mass, but this is ridiculous. If I understand it correctly, last I heard a priest can celebrate the Novus Ordo in Latin on his own initiative, and without an indult. I have two suggestions for the good Fr. Weinberger: 1.) Go to the new assignment (the obedience to ordinary thing, you know) and do for that assignment what you did for this parish, and 2.) contact the St. Joseph Foundation for help on asserting your legitimate authority to say the Novus Ordo in Latin.
Thanks for another great fisk, Dale.
Oops. Make that the St. Joseph Foundation. If that doesn't work, here's the URL:
http://www.st-joseph-foundation.org
Dear Greg,
Looks like the New Mass in the vernacular will lead the whole Church down toga lane. Ever wondered why Mass attendance just keeps on falling? Might ought to. What a spectacle! The three member choir singing "Gather Us In" to empty pews...
Dale,
Yes, we know about all the complaining that goes on. I offer a weekday Mass in Latin (facing East) once a month. Certain people, who NEVER go to daily Mass, will show up at the Latin Mass just so they can complain about it. Here's the general type of the complainer: 1) Has gray hair and limps, 2) Never learned a foreign language 3) Thinks the Church was founded in 1965 4) Loves water aerobics and shuffleboard 5) Has no children who are practicing the Catholic Faith 6) Whines about how mistreated he was by the nuns 7) Thinks that most younger priests are behind the times 
Still talks about the "Great Renewal" that we are presently enjoying, and 9) Cries during the singing of "On Eagles' Wings."
Dear Fr. Ray,
I carry no brief for modern Catholic liturgical music. The Lutheran mass I used to know is far more reverent than most of the Catholic masses I've attended.
But are you arguing that Latin is the solution? I think the solution is serious reverence -- in words, music and action -- which can be done quite well in English.
Dear Father Williams,
"Looks like the New Mass in the vernacular will lead the whole Church down toga lane."
With all due respect, the New Mass is no more the cause of silliness than the Latin Mass is the cause of pomposity.
No, the New Mass is not the cause of silliness; it's only the occasion, something the traditional Latin Mass was never accused of. I fail, however, in discerning the connection between Latin and "pomposity." My point is that ever since the "great renewal" began (following Vatican II) there has been a decrease in all the standard evidences of the Church's life. I am not arguing that Latin is the solution; I am arguing that Tradition is. And I am not arguing for Latin simply, but for a return to the traditional Latin Mass, the Mass of the ages. Whatever our own opinion of the use of Latin in the liturgy, the Church in her wisdom insisted on that usage, in the western Church, for a millenium and a half or more and that ever since we changed that, we have seen nothing but a slide downward. I don't really care how seemingly "reverent" a Lutheran "mass" is in English; I simply point to what has become of the Catholic liturgy ever since Latin was dropped. I keep hearing from
I think Latin is important to the life of the Church because I think that having a sacred language is important. I prefer to have it gradually re-incorporated back into the liturgy -- similar to how Reform Jews are gradually re-incorporating Hebrew back into their liturgy -- but I also think that catechesis has a long way to go before people can be expected to welcome a full Latin Mass.
I think Mary's point, Father, is that just as the complainers at your Latin Mass are basically and unjustly accusing the Latin Mass of being pompous, so too accusations of silliness against the standard Roman rite of the Mass (the Ordo Missae, not the Novus Ordo) are unjust. The Latin Mass could conceivably be just as easily be an occasion of silliness should the celebrants permit it, and we laity would never know because it's in Latin!
That's right Michelle.
There's an opinion that the people of God would return to holiness if only there's a return to the Traditional Latin Mass as if there were no sinners, or at least no perceivable ones, among the faithful before Vatican II. The truth is that there are sinners now and there have always been sinners at Mass. There are those who are arrogant, and those who are irreverent. There are those who are humble and there are those who are faithful. Jesus even addressed them in the temple.
In addition, Father's observation that there's been "nothing but a slide downward" can be attributed to a great many things - many of which influenced Vatican II in the first place. For one thing, society changed a great deal. There were great shifts in the structure of family, the mobility of people, industrialization, and advancement in communications and on and on. All of these things, each in their own way, have contributed to a loss of holiness among the people. I d
The church kept the Latin mass because it wanted to preserve "Christendom" -- they wanted a united culture, which requires (or is, at least, strongly helped by) a single language. When it became obvious that "Christendom" was a dead concept, there was no need to keep Latin.
This business about a "sacred language" doesn't stand up to scrutiny against redemptive history. If there was ever a sacred language, it was Hebrew. But Jesus seems to have spoken Aramaic, and the NT writers (with only a few possible exceptions) wrote in Greek. It seems to me that if we wanted a sacred language, it should be the koine Greek of the New Testament, not Latin.
But I don't think we need a sacred language. The point of Pentecost is that the Gospel now goes out to all the world -- to all cultures and all languages.
I can respect the idea that we should return to the Tridentine mass, but I would say that we should "return" to accurate vernacular translations of the Tridentine mass, not
(continued ...)
... we should "return" to accurate vernacular translations of the Tridentine mass, not force everyone to speak Latin.
I know it is common in conservative circles to speak ill of Vatican II, but I think it was a good council that enacted necessary reforms -- like the mass in the vernacular and communion in both kinds -- without either of which I would never have become Catholic. (If it had only allowed married men to become priests, Philip Melanchthon's victory would have been complete!)
Greg:
Just a preliminary response (like Jeopardy, in the form of a question), because I'm mulling this over.
Should the King James Version be permanently shelved, too?
I may take this up at And Then? -- tomorrow, if I can squeeze it in -- but Latin is the official language of the Church, Greg. With very few exceptions, all of the Church's important documents have official Latin translations. Because it is the ecclesial language and because the Church exists for the sanctification of all mankind, we can say that Latin is the Church's sacred language.
Even in the first century, Hebrew was the sacred language of the Jews, although they also spoke Aramaic (a local dialect), Greek (the commercial language), and Latin (if they were Roman citizens or had business with the empire).
It is important for the Church to have an official language because, as one example, any arguments over ecclesial directives can be resolved with the official translation. It has the potential to unite Catholics again. More later, if I get the chance.
Peace, all.
Any parish that attends to liturgy with quality and beauty will do well. It's a happy accident that in this parish, it happens to be Latin. I've known more parishes that soar because of good preaching or high-quality music. Mary H's comment was spot on.
Latin may be a beautiful language to speak and sing, but worship in the vernacular has taken root for Catholics everywhere, even in Rome. Even in this parish's case, Latin was used as a pragmatic approach to a multi-lingual challenge. That seems the limit to ordinary usage in my opinion.
Dale,
The King James is a good translation, but the one you buy on the shelf today isn't really the original King James. It's an updated version. And even this update is hard for many people to understand. The point being that real languages change.
The desire to "go back" to the King James version seems about the same as the desire to "go back" to the Latin mass. The King James was, in its day, a modern, vernacular translation of the Bible, just as the Latin mass was originally a modern, vernacular translation of the liturgy. Holding to the King James translation or to the Latin mass over the modern vernacular misses the point of both of those enterprises, which was to bring the faith to people in the language they knew.
Lack of Latin = fall in Church attendance - all I can say is "res ipsa loquitor".
Every priest of the Roman rite may celebrate the Mass in Latin by virtue of Canon Law itself:
Can. 928 The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided the liturgical texts have been lawfully approved.
One may, indeed, surmise from the wording of the canon that Latin is actually the preferred language. There is no hint here that a bishop may prohibit a Latin mass, let alone that his permission is required. (This refers, of course, to the so-called Novus Ordo.)
Commenting by HaloScan
