3 ms·

Indeed; and when the Second Vatican Council decided Mass should be said in the vernacular, the obligation of the Church was to follow. Instead, the conservative

by gortok 1y ago

Indeed; and when the Second Vatican Council decided Mass should be said in the vernacular, the obligation of the Church was to follow. Instead, the conservatives of the church ('conservative' here means those that emphasize adhering to tradition and are adverse to change) created a rift by eschewing this change and even heightening the importance of the Latin Mass, creating the impression that a mass spoken in the local language was somehow less of a mass. If you’re Catholic, suggesting that a mass spoken in one language over another is somehow "less" takes away from the most important idea of the Mass: reenacting Christ’s Last supper commandment and the institution of the Holy Eucharist for what amounts to word games. This divisive description of the mass increased over the decades, to the point that it threatened to cause a schism. As such it was the Holy Father’s duty to resolve the issue.

gambiting 1y ago
There are still groups(at least I'm aware of them in Poland, I've met people who are part of them) who believe exactly this, that the second Vatican Sobor was a mistake and the "real" mass is only the one conducted in Latin.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  It seems unlikely that Jesus spoke Latin at the last supper.
  - slowmovintarget 1y ago
    Also unlikely that Jesus intended for the ceremony to be conducted at times other than the evening of his death (replacing Passover). Up for interpretation, I suppose.
    - michaelsbradley 1y ago
      As in just the one time? Or as a once per year replacement?
      - slowmovintarget 1y ago
        Once per year. He commanded his disciples to "do this in remembrance of me." There is no mention of how often, but given Jesus allergy to ritual as opposed to genuine acts of worship, it seems reasonable that this would not be a commonplace thing. Again... interpretation.
        michaelsbradley 1y ago
        We can get context for how the early Christians understood it by looking to additional sources from that period, e.g. the Didache and the early Church Fathers. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/holy-eucharist-in-the-early-fathers-24203 https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/holy-eucharist-in-t...
  - michaelsbradley 1y ago
    You’re under the impression that’s relevant? How so? Asking out of genuine curiosity.
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      My understanding is that the mass is intended to be a recreation or commemoration of that event. So why is speaking it in Latin important?
      - michaelsbradley 1y ago
        In the early centuries of Christianity, as it spread geographically, there developed distinct rites of worship that solidified and then were handed down to the present, retaining strong links to the spoken-written languages used to express them originally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_particular_churches_and_liturgical_rites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_particular_churches_a... Oversimplifying greatly, but in and from Western Europe we have the Latin Rite, and in/from the East we have the Byzantine (Greek) Rite. There are others, not of less importance, see the link above. There’s quite a lot of history involved in all this. But in Western Christianity it was Latin that became predominant for public worship and knowledge transmission.
  - aredox 1y ago
    It was certainly not in Latin. It was either in Hebrew of in Greek. The focus on latin is a pure nitpicking and virtue signaling from the Conservatives (the irony!).
    - skissane 1y ago
      > It was certainly not in Latin. It was either in Hebrew of in Greek. I think it was very likely mostly Aramaic, possibly with some Hebrew mixed in (certain set prayers, with Torah readings in Hebrew followed by extemporaneous Aramaic translation). By the 1st century, Jews had abandoned Hebrew as an everyday tongue, a situation which didn't change until Zionists revived it in the late 19th century (which caused great controversy, since the traditional Jewish belief was that Hebrew is a holy language which should be reserved for religious purposes only, a position still maintained by most non-Israeli ultra-Orthodox to this day.) Putting aside any claims of supernatural linguistic abilities, Jesus of Nazareth would likely have been fluent in Aramaic (his native tongue), competent in using Hebrew for certain religious purposes (but not as a language of everyday life), possibly some limited ability in Greek (but probably not fluent), maybe a few words of Latin (but very unlikely to be fluent). > The focus on latin is a pure nitpicking and virtue signaling from the Conservatives (the irony!). The majority of TLM (Traditional Latin Mass) adherents care more about keeping the traditional Tridentine (pre-Vatican II) liturgy than about Latin in itself – Catholic priests are allowed to say the contemporary Mass in Latin (subject to certain conditions), but there is rather little demand for it.
  - owendlamb 1y ago
    But we do have record that the cross' title was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. God certainly had a special plan for these languages: the language of God's Law, the language of human power, and the language of human wisdom. The presence of His name in all three languages left the situation unambiguous to whoever might have been in the area to read it. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, hung on that cross. When pressed about it, Pilate would not amend those words. In this way, though maybe unnecessary thanks to the Gift of Tongues the Holy Spirit later gave to His apostles, the sign stood as a kind of Rosetta Stone, which no one could misunderstand. It shows that history itself, along with all human matters, belong completely to Him, and at the same time it made those languages new by virtue of that single title, grounding them firmly in the Truth Himself. Latin and Greek, themselves originally vernaculars, continue to hold a special place in their respective churches, both Catholic and Orthodox. Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, continues to be used in many Eastern churches as well, again Catholic and Orthodox both. All three constitute especially venerable traditions—and to this we may add Coptic, since Jesus spent his early years in Egypt; Slavonic, for its very writing system's role in the conversion of the Slavs; and a handful of others I am more or less ignorant of. With each one, by entering into the language, you enter the mind of those first converts, who themselves entered the Mind of Christ. In the Latin Catholic Church (that is, the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church, or however you want to name it) we call the Latin language a "sacramental"—the same sort of thing as holy water, something which conveys grace to those who use it with an openness to those graces. Demons hate it because of its legal precision, by which, in the name of the same Christ named in Latin on the cross, they are driven out of people, things, and places, fulfilling Christ's own prediction that His followers would cast out demons. By forming one's faith life around one of these languages, one can more clearly ask those basic human questions that Christ is the answer to, without having to deal with the centuries of semantic drift and overloading that are scattered about the minefields of our modern vernaculars. The vernacular, of course, is no impediment to personal prayer, but as more and more people are gathered in one place the confusion of Babel threatens to set in. On the other hand, every little Latin grammatical lesson, every new piece of vocabulary learned, reveals new wonders and opens the door to the great body of literature that was composed in the single Mind of Christ. But we had this, and in the 20th century we let it slip through our fingers, not knowing what we'd been given. The problem is not that we don't know Latin. The problem is that, in broad cultural strokes, even when we did, we didn't care.
michaelsbradley 1y ago
> the Second Vatican Council decided Mass should be said in the vernacular It didn't actually. See Sacrosanctum Concilium: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_coun... Vatican II opened the way for use of vernacular in the Mass while also directing "use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites". In practice, after the overhaul of the Latin rites was completed and promulgated (published) in 1969, four years after the council ended in '65, the Latin language itself was dropped almost everywhere all at once and only translations were used. Many people rejoiced at that, some did not, but the vast majority of bishops, priests and laity alike, conservatives and liberals across the full spectrum, probably 99.999%, went ahead full throttle with Mass and all the sacraments in the vernacular. There were hold-out contingents like the SSPX, led by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who stuck with the all Latin rites per the last round of small reforms in 1962, the same as used for the celebration of Mass, etc. during the whole time of the council from 1962-65. It was over the next 40 years that discontent with the reforms of 1969, and their fallout, began to grow. There was increasing awareness that it wasn't just a switch from Latin to vernacular — the '69 reforms were "cut from whole cloth", outright replacing the traditional rites with syntheses of a commission of scholars. Long story short, many Catholics, some born before '69 and many born after (myself included), desire a return, and have implemented a return, to the traditional form of the Latin rites. Pope Benedict XVI gave it his blessing. But then Pope Francis was not a fan, believing it to be a retrograde movement that causes more harm than good and a kind of "saying no" to the Holy Spirit. It's hard to find middle ground on this matter, to be quite honest.
- keepamovin 1y ago
  Illa fuit captatio nerdorum maxime satisfaciens.
- mvieira38 1y ago
  No idea why you're being downvoted, you're correct. There was and still is pushback against the liturgical reform even from pro-Vatican II priests and bishops
throaway1989 1y ago
The issue ive heard with non-Latin mass is that it has lessened the feeling of global community among Catholics as they now do not all speak the same language (Latin).
- philsnow 1y ago
  Anecdatum, but I still feel like part of a community when I go to Mass in a language I'm not familiar with, because its rhythm and flow are the same more or less everywhere. Disclaimer: I'm definitely not old enough to predate vatican 2, so I'm not from a time when Latin Mass was widespread.

by gortok 1y ago

gambiting 1y ago

There are still groups(at least I'm aware of them in Poland, I've met people who are part of them) who believe exactly this, that the second Vatican Sobor was a mistake and the "real" mass is only the one conducted in Latin.

amanaplanacanal 1y ago
It seems unlikely that Jesus spoke Latin at the last supper.
- slowmovintarget 1y ago
  Also unlikely that Jesus intended for the ceremony to be conducted at times other than the evening of his death (replacing Passover). Up for interpretation, I suppose.
  - michaelsbradley 1y ago
    As in just the one time? Or as a once per year replacement?
    - slowmovintarget 1y ago
      Once per year. He commanded his disciples to "do this in remembrance of me." There is no mention of how often, but given Jesus allergy to ritual as opposed to genuine acts of worship, it seems reasonable that this would not be a commonplace thing. Again... interpretation.
      - michaelsbradley 1y ago
        We can get context for how the early Christians understood it by looking to additional sources from that period, e.g. the Didache and the early Church Fathers. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/holy-eucharist-in-the-early-fathers-24203 https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/holy-eucharist-in-t...
- michaelsbradley 1y ago
  You’re under the impression that’s relevant? How so? Asking out of genuine curiosity.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    My understanding is that the mass is intended to be a recreation or commemoration of that event. So why is speaking it in Latin important?
    - michaelsbradley 1y ago
      In the early centuries of Christianity, as it spread geographically, there developed distinct rites of worship that solidified and then were handed down to the present, retaining strong links to the spoken-written languages used to express them originally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_particular_churches_and_liturgical_rites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_particular_churches_a... Oversimplifying greatly, but in and from Western Europe we have the Latin Rite, and in/from the East we have the Byzantine (Greek) Rite. There are others, not of less importance, see the link above. There’s quite a lot of history involved in all this. But in Western Christianity it was Latin that became predominant for public worship and knowledge transmission.
- aredox 1y ago
  It was certainly not in Latin. It was either in Hebrew of in Greek. The focus on latin is a pure nitpicking and virtue signaling from the Conservatives (the irony!).
  - skissane 1y ago
    > It was certainly not in Latin. It was either in Hebrew of in Greek. I think it was very likely mostly Aramaic, possibly with some Hebrew mixed in (certain set prayers, with Torah readings in Hebrew followed by extemporaneous Aramaic translation). By the 1st century, Jews had abandoned Hebrew as an everyday tongue, a situation which didn't change until Zionists revived it in the late 19th century (which caused great controversy, since the traditional Jewish belief was that Hebrew is a holy language which should be reserved for religious purposes only, a position still maintained by most non-Israeli ultra-Orthodox to this day.) Putting aside any claims of supernatural linguistic abilities, Jesus of Nazareth would likely have been fluent in Aramaic (his native tongue), competent in using Hebrew for certain religious purposes (but not as a language of everyday life), possibly some limited ability in Greek (but probably not fluent), maybe a few words of Latin (but very unlikely to be fluent). > The focus on latin is a pure nitpicking and virtue signaling from the Conservatives (the irony!). The majority of TLM (Traditional Latin Mass) adherents care more about keeping the traditional Tridentine (pre-Vatican II) liturgy than about Latin in itself – Catholic priests are allowed to say the contemporary Mass in Latin (subject to certain conditions), but there is rather little demand for it.
- owendlamb 1y ago
  But we do have record that the cross' title was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. God certainly had a special plan for these languages: the language of God's Law, the language of human power, and the language of human wisdom. The presence of His name in all three languages left the situation unambiguous to whoever might have been in the area to read it. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, hung on that cross. When pressed about it, Pilate would not amend those words. In this way, though maybe unnecessary thanks to the Gift of Tongues the Holy Spirit later gave to His apostles, the sign stood as a kind of Rosetta Stone, which no one could misunderstand. It shows that history itself, along with all human matters, belong completely to Him, and at the same time it made those languages new by virtue of that single title, grounding them firmly in the Truth Himself. Latin and Greek, themselves originally vernaculars, continue to hold a special place in their respective churches, both Catholic and Orthodox. Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, continues to be used in many Eastern churches as well, again Catholic and Orthodox both. All three constitute especially venerable traditions—and to this we may add Coptic, since Jesus spent his early years in Egypt; Slavonic, for its very writing system's role in the conversion of the Slavs; and a handful of others I am more or less ignorant of. With each one, by entering into the language, you enter the mind of those first converts, who themselves entered the Mind of Christ. In the Latin Catholic Church (that is, the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church, or however you want to name it) we call the Latin language a "sacramental"—the same sort of thing as holy water, something which conveys grace to those who use it with an openness to those graces. Demons hate it because of its legal precision, by which, in the name of the same Christ named in Latin on the cross, they are driven out of people, things, and places, fulfilling Christ's own prediction that His followers would cast out demons. By forming one's faith life around one of these languages, one can more clearly ask those basic human questions that Christ is the answer to, without having to deal with the centuries of semantic drift and overloading that are scattered about the minefields of our modern vernaculars. The vernacular, of course, is no impediment to personal prayer, but as more and more people are gathered in one place the confusion of Babel threatens to set in. On the other hand, every little Latin grammatical lesson, every new piece of vocabulary learned, reveals new wonders and opens the door to the great body of literature that was composed in the single Mind of Christ. But we had this, and in the 20th century we let it slip through our fingers, not knowing what we'd been given. The problem is not that we don't know Latin. The problem is that, in broad cultural strokes, even when we did, we didn't care.

michaelsbradley 1y ago

> the Second Vatican Council decided Mass should be said in the vernacular It didn't actually. See Sacrosanctum Concilium: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_coun... Vatican II opened the way for use of vernacular in the Mass while also directing "use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites". In practice, after the overhaul of the Latin rites was completed and promulgated (published) in 1969, four years after the council ended in '65, the Latin language itself was dropped almost everywhere all at once and only translations were used. Many people rejoiced at that, some did not, but the vast majority of bishops, priests and laity alike, conservatives and liberals across the full spectrum, probably 99.999%, went ahead full throttle with Mass and all the sacraments in the vernacular. There were hold-out contingents like the SSPX, led by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who stuck with the all Latin rites per the last round of small reforms in 1962, the same as used for the celebration of Mass, etc. during the whole time of the council from 1962-65. It was over the next 40 years that discontent with the reforms of 1969, and their fallout, began to grow. There was increasing awareness that it wasn't just a switch from Latin to vernacular — the '69 reforms were "cut from whole cloth", outright replacing the traditional rites with syntheses of a commission of scholars. Long story short, many Catholics, some born before '69 and many born after (myself included), desire a return, and have implemented a return, to the traditional form of the Latin rites. Pope Benedict XVI gave it his blessing. But then Pope Francis was not a fan, believing it to be a retrograde movement that causes more harm than good and a kind of "saying no" to the Holy Spirit. It's hard to find middle ground on this matter, to be quite honest.

keepamovin 1y ago
Illa fuit captatio nerdorum maxime satisfaciens.
mvieira38 1y ago
No idea why you're being downvoted, you're correct. There was and still is pushback against the liturgical reform even from pro-Vatican II priests and bishops

throaway1989 1y ago

The issue ive heard with non-Latin mass is that it has lessened the feeling of global community among Catholics as they now do not all speak the same language (Latin).

philsnow 1y ago
Anecdatum, but I still feel like part of a community when I go to Mass in a language I'm not familiar with, because its rhythm and flow are the same more or less everywhere. Disclaimer: I'm definitely not old enough to predate vatican 2, so I'm not from a time when Latin Mass was widespread.