NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, the Latin Mass hey....Considered at one point to represent eveything that is Catholic and then in the 60's (can't remember of the top of my head which year it was) they go and dispose of it. Rightly or wrongly, that is up to you (i.e: Catholics).

But, despite being self-proclaimed progressive Catholic (yay womens ordination and Church support of condoms) I have to say that a massive mistake was made at Vatican II to get rid of Latin Mass, something which the Church is suffering as a result, today.

Latin Mass had been in virtual use in Christendom for nearly 2,000 years (though 500 years they decided to get rid of it in some Northern places ;) ) and then, because of Protestant and liberal (note that is secular liberal pressure) a fundamental part of Catholicism disappeared, and although doctrines such as transubstantiation did not go it's very obvious that with the murder of Tridentine Mass the belief in transubstantiation has waned.

The Holy Latin Mass, celebrating the most Holy Sacrement in Christianity (of which the overwhelming majority of denominations also conclude to be the most important sacrement) was discarded and Catholic identity lost as a result.

Another, more unusual reason for my support of the reintroduction of Latin Mass, is the fact that it represents untiy within the Church. Whether you were in New York, Rome, Manila or Mozambique everybody would have heard the same, seen the same, experienced the same. Mass did not recognise cultural, lingual or racial differences. It did not become one type to one group of people and a different thing to another group of people. Everybody, regardless of race, language or culture experienced the same Holy Mass.

Vatican II destroyed that and allowed the Mass to be shaped upon secular differences between people. An English Catholic can no longer go to Mozambique or Manila and hear the same words as he/she heard in London. A priest from Brazil can no longer go to America and conduct Mass (unless he knows English) properly. Racial, cultural and lingual differences now prevail and this will only cause schism and breakaway churches - we can see that from the Reformation where patriotism became more important than the Church in some places and people equated being patriotic with being Protestant ('and free from foreign rule'). Patriotism and nationalism within the Church has been given a new lease of life as a result of Common Mass.

By returning to Latin Mass, unity under Christ will once again occur and racism, patriotism and schism will not.

You seem to be suggesting that the Latin mass is a great unifying force that would help prevent schism and such. What about in the past when the Church even had two Popes for a while, one in France and one in Rome? They had Latin mass during that schism, didn't they?

You seem to be suggesting that the Latin mass is a great unifying force that would help prevent schism and such. What about in the past when the Church even had two Popes for a while, one in France and one in Rome? They had Latin mass during that schism, didn't they?

That was down to secular, and more importantly, racial issues..or so I believe. Latin Mass was not at fault. Patriotism and nationalism worked its way into the Church and messed it right up!

The latin mass was done awya with in a progressive movement to include catholics around the world more in the mass by changing from an all latin mass, which has been basically a dead language since far before the 1960s, to a native language mass. i love latin and all, but who speaks it fluently other than the priests and clerics? about no one. changing to a native language mass was probably the last intelligent thing the church has done

That was down to secular, and more importantly, racial issues..or so I believe. Latin Mass was not at fault. Patriotism and nationalism worked its way into the Church and messed it right up!
by all means, explain how a latin mass is a unifying force when latin has been essentially dead for a long long time

That was down to secular, and more importantly, racial issues..or so I believe. Latin Mass was not at fault. Patriotism and nationalism worked its way into the Church and messed it right up!


Latin mass was certainly not at fault (which was not my point anyway), but neither did it prevent schism. As you noted, other issues were able to overcome the Latin mass and cause schism, so the Latin mass couldn't have been helping all that much. I would conclude from this that cultural issues, and not the liturgical format, were the root of the problem that needed addressing, rather than the mass.

The latin mass was done awya with in a progressive movement to include catholics around the world more in the mass by changing from an all latin mass, which has been basically a dead language since far before the 1960s, to a native language mass. i love latin and all, but who speaks it fluently other than the priests and clerics? about no one. changing to a native language mass was probably the last intelligent thing the church has done

Did you read any of what I wrote? I don't really care when Mass was changed...IMO, it should never have been changed.

Did you read any of what I wrote? I don't really care when Mass was changed...IMO, it should never have been changed.
welcome to the land of crazy seperatists that involve the likes of the nutcase mel gibson and his dad.

"Tristis ceterum vere"

"Tristis ceterum vere"
see, how does that unify catholics? i can translate a total of one word in that phrase

Latin mass was certainly not at fault (which was not my point anyway), but neither did it prevent schism. As you noted, other issues were able to overcome the Latin mass and cause schism, so the Latin mass couldn't have been helping all that much. I would conclude from this that cultural issues, and not the liturgical format, were the root of the problem that needed addressing, rather than the mass.

Yes, because powerful people used patriotism to stir the masses against Latin Mass and the Church, that is why I said it was seen to be patriotic to be against Latin Mass, the Church etc.

And yes, if we promote unity within the Church rather than allowing itself to be based on racial, national, lingual and cultural issues then the Church would be a much better place for it.

by all means, explain how a latin mass is a unifying force when latin has been essentially dead for a long long time

Tu credes? Dico Latina floreat!

Of course originally it would probably have been in Greek (the linguafranca of the eastern part of the Empire). Not that that's at all relevant...

Ni!

welcome to the land of crazy seperatists that involve the likes of the nutcase mel gibson and his dad.

I am not a seperatists. I truly believe that Pope John Paul II is God's representative on earth and that he descends in the line from St. Peter. I would never call His Holiness the anti-christ (as Mel Gibsons dad has).

And, again if you read the beginning of my opening post you would realise that I am essentially a progressive liberal catholic and my reasoning behind bringing latin mass back is for untiy - quite different from what you are calling me.

Yes, because powerful people used patriotism to stir the masses against Latin Mass and the Church, that is why I said it was seen to be patriotic to be against Latin Mass, the Church etc.

And yes, if we promote unity within the Church rather than allowing itself to be based on racial, national, lingual and cultural issues then the Church would be a much better place for it.
asinine unintelligence is all i see here

the latin mass was done away with to FURTHER include people in catholicism, latin has been dead for a long time, THAT is why they switched to a native language mass.

you can promote unity without forcing all peoples to listen to a mass in a language no one understands. recession for the sake of recession is stupid to say the least

I am not a seperatists. I truly believe that Pope John Paul II is God's representative on earth and that he descends in the line from St. Peter. I would never call His Holiness the anti-christ (as Mel Gibsons dad has).

And, again if you read the beginning of my opening post you would realise that I am essentially a progressive liberal catholic and my reasoning behind bringing latin mass back is for untiy - quite different from what you are calling me.
you are not progressive, you advocate recession.

Tu credes? Dico Latina floreat!

Of course originally it would probably have been in Greek (the linguafranca of the eastern part of the Empire). Not that that's at all relevant...

Yes, but that was over a millenia ago and the Roman Catholic Church has been essentially Latin for at least a 1,000 years.

I'm saying that it doesn't matter what language Mass is said in as long as it is the same language everywhere in the world. And Latin is the easy option as it was for at least a 1,000 years the language that Mass was said in and it has the bonus of being a dead language (thus, it doesn't offend anyone or support a particular group/race of people).

Tu credes? Dico Latina floreat!

Of course originally it would probably have been in Greek (the linguafranca of the eastern part of the Empire). Not that that's at all relevant...
i understoof ia bit more of that, not sure what floreat is..

You said it yourself, CE.

That was down to secular, and more importantly, racial issues..or so I believe. Latin Mass was not at fault. Patriotism and nationalism...messed it right up!

It had nought to do with the language used in the mass. It was, and still is, a cultural problem that the Church can't do anything about by changing mass languages. Changing back to Latin is more likely to cause schism than prevent it.

you are not progressive, you advocate recession.

Just because I advocate recession on one issue does not mean that I am not progressive.

I support womens ordination, Church support of condoms etc. My 'progressiveness' already outweighs my 'traditional side' by 2 to 1!

Yes, but that was over a millenia ago and the Roman Catholic Church has been essentially Latin for at least a 1,000 years.

I'm saying that it doesn't matter what language Mass is said in as long as it is the same language everywhere in the world. And Latin is the easy option as it was for at least a 1,000 years the language that Mass was said in and it has the bonus of being a dead language (thus, it doesn't offend anyone or support a particular group/race of people).
ah, but latin ISNT the easiest option, latin is essentially a dead language and those italian and spanish and portuguese speakers might be able to udnerstand some of it,those are not the major languages in the world. if ANYTHING, for the sake of "unity", the lnauage should be english as it is the most widespread and required to know language

You said it yourself, CE. It had nought to do with the language used in the mass. It was, and still is, a cultural problem that the Church can't do anything about by changing mass languages. Changing back to Latin is more likely to cause schism than prevent it.

I disagree, and I believe that by going back to Latin Mass it will cut down on cultural differences rather than cause schism.

ah, but latin ISNT the easiest option, latin is essentially a dead language and those italian and spanish and portuguese speakers might be able to udnerstand some of it,those are not the major languages in the world. if ANYTHING, for the sake of "unity", the lnauage should be english as it is the most widespread and required to know language

I think you will find that the majority of Catholics in this world speak either Spanish, Portuguese, Italian or French...and if I am right, all 4 of these languages are latin languages.

I disagree, and I believe that by going back to Latin Mass it will cut down on cultural differences rather than cause schism.
it will increase the cultrual differences as latin is a DEAD language for at least the eighth time, advocating a dead language to fix seperation is inane at best. if anything it should be english which is the most used language around the world, closely followed by spanish i believe

I disagree, and I believe that by going back to Latin Mass it will cut down on cultural differences rather than cause schism.

The only unifying it would do is in getting almost everyone in the Church to say this:

"Those guys in Rome are stupid."

I think you will find that the majority of Catholics in this world speak either Spanish, Portuguese, Italian or French...and if I am right, all 4 of these languages are latin languages.
that is NOT the point, those are not major languages in the WORLD, were catholic only in spanish, portuguese and italian controlled countries it would be fine, it is NOT. (and i refuse to except french as latin, romantic yes, latin no, i can recognise nothing of the french language where as i am almost half decent with latin and italian and portuguese from knowing some spanish)

it will increase the cultrual differences as latin is a DEAD language for at least the eighth time, advocating a dead language to fix seperation is inane at best. if anything it should be english which is the most used language around the world, closely followed by spanish i believe

read what I have wrote above.

And, if Latin is dead (which it is), how can it promote cultural differences? It is better to choose a dead language than one that is alive as to choose one that is alive is to align yourself with a particular group of people.

that is NOT the point, those are not major languages in the WORLD, were catholic only in spanish, portuguese and italian controlled countries it would be fine, it is NOT. (and i refuse to except french as latin, romantic yes, latin no, i can recognise nothing of the french language where as i am almost half decent with latin and italian and portuguese from knowing some spanish)

You can refuse to accept it all you like, French is a latin language.

Are you even Catholic Chess Squares?

read what I have wrote above.

And, if Latin is dead (which it is), how can it promote cultural differences? It is better to choose a dead language than one that is alive as to choose one that is alive is to align yourself with a particular group of people.
you then choose to disassociate the church with the people and create a chasm between church officials and the public, which was the main problem in the first place

Are you even Catholic Chess Squares?
technically

technically

Baptised in, but not practising?

Baptised in, but not practising?
something like that

it will increase the cultrual differences as latin is a DEAD language for at least the eighth time, advocating a dead language to fix seperation is inane at best. if anything it should be english which is the most used language around the world, closely followed by spanish i believe


The most used language around the world is Mandarin Chinese. But regardless, making a living language the official language would just offend all the non-native speakers of that language. That's why choosing Latin, or Ancient Greek, or even Esperanto, would be a more unifying act. Everyone would learn a universal language. Latin would clearly be the best choice for a universal language, because there is already the tradition.

In addition, Latin is still the official language of the Vatican City, and through it, of all of Roman Catholicism. I believe they use Latin for most of the meetings they have between clergy from different areas, and the encyclicals, etc. are written in Latin. Therefore, reintroducing the Latin Mass isn't that wild of an idea. I'm not saying they should eliminate the vernacular masses, because the faithful still need to be able to understand what is being said. But I support a Latin Mass every once in a while, to unite a parish with Catholics worldwide.

Also, back when they had the Latin Mass, most parishioners had missals, so they could read in the vernacular what was being said by the priest in Latin.

The most used language around the world is Mandarin Chinese. But regardless, making a living language the official language would just offend all the non-native speakers of that language. That's why choosing Latin, or Ancient Greek, or even Esperanto, would be a more unifying act. Everyone would learn a universal language. Latin would clearly be the best choice for a universal language, because there is already the tradition.

In addition, Latin is still the official language of the Vatican City, and through it, of all of Roman Catholicism. I believe they use Latin for most of the meetings they have between clergy from different areas, and the encyclicals, etc. are written in Latin. Therefore, reintroducing the Latin Mass isn't that wild of an idea. I'm not saying they should eliminate the vernacular masses, because the faithful still need to be able to understand what is being said. But I support a Latin Mass every once in a while, to unite a parish with Catholics worldwide.
but like i have already stated before, who knows latin besides the clergy? no one in particular. that was the problem in the first place. the church officials were seperate from and above the public and masses were things that you attendef not participated in. the use of latin held the church seperate from the populace, that is part of what caused all the scisms in the first place.

Hey. I dont know if anyone else pointed this out, as I'm too lazy to read all of the entries, but what changed at Vatican II (ended around 1967) was the Tridentine Mass, which was the liturgy used. Latin itself was not outright banned (and interestingly enough, the Old Mass was said in the vernacular elsewhere in the world. Scotland, for example).

Today the New Mass can be said in Latin; that's not an issue. The Tridentine liturgy can also be said, but only with special dispensation from the local ordinary (I think it has to be the ordinary).

Feel free to discuss, yell, etc over this. In all honesty I'll probably forget to check back, so any attempts to contact me on the forum might be fruitless.

Peace

Ni!

Stop.

Also, back when they had the Latin Mass, most parishioners had missals, so they could read in the vernacular what was being said by the priest in Latin.

They still do that in those Churches which practice Latin Mass

Well, the Latin Mass hey....Considered at one point to represent eveything that is Catholic and then in the 60's (can't remember of the top of my head which year it was) they go and dispose of it. Rightly or wrongly, that is up to you (i.e: Catholics).

But, despite being self-proclaimed progressive Catholic (yay womens ordination and Church support of condoms) I have to say that a massive mistake was made at Vatican II to get rid of Latin Mass, something which the Church is suffering as a result, today.

Latin Mass had been in virtual use in Christendom for nearly 2,000 years (though 500 years they decided to get rid of it in some Northern places ;) ) and then, because of Protestant and liberal (note that is secular liberal pressure) a fundamental part of Catholicism disappeared, and although doctrines such as transubstantiation did not go it's very obvious that with the murder of Tridentine Mass the belief in transubstantiation has waned.

The Holy Latin Mass, celebrating the most Holy Sacrement in Christianity (of which the overwhelming majority of denominations also conclude to be the most important sacrement) was discarded and Catholic identity lost as a result.

Another, more unusual reason for my support of the reintroduction of Latin Mass, is the fact that it represents untiy within the Church. Whether you were in New York, Rome, Manila or Mozambique everybody would have heard the same, seen the same, experienced the same. Mass did not recognise cultural, lingual or racial differences. It did not become one type to one group of people and a different thing to another group of people. Everybody, regardless of race, language or culture experienced the same Holy Mass.

Vatican II destroyed that and allowed the Mass to be shaped upon secular differences between people. An English Catholic can no longer go to Mozambique or Manila and hear the same words as he/she heard in London. A priest from Brazil can no longer go to America and conduct Mass (unless he knows English) properly. Racial, cultural and lingual differences now prevail and this will only cause schism and breakaway churches - we can see that from the Reformation where patriotism became more important than the Church in some places and people equated being patriotic with being Protestant ('and free from foreign rule'). Patriotism and nationalism within the Church has been given a new lease of life as a result of Common Mass.

By returning to Latin Mass, unity under Christ will once again occur and racism, patriotism and schism will not.

Sorry mate, but I'm an Anglican so I suppose I have no right to post on this issue. Its your faith and you can say what you like about it. In my opinion, although obviously biased, I dislike the Catholic Latin Mass but then what else would you expect. No disrespect to you though.

Sorry mate, but I'm an Anglican so I suppose I have no right to post on this issue. Its your faith and you can say what you like about it. In my opinion, although obviously biased, I dislike the Catholic Latin Mass but then what else would you expect. No disrespect to you though.

Why do you dislike it?

Why do you dislike it?

Cos I believe that we each have a personal relationship with God and therefore believe that we do not need to learn Latin, or to trust the priests who speak it to us, in order to understand the word of God. I believe that in reading the bible and understanding it and in discussing God amongst your peers, one can be actively Christian.

But that's just because I'm an Anglican, again.

Cos I believe that we each have a personal relationship with God and therefore believe that we do not need to learn Latin, or to trust the priests who speak it to us, in order to understand the word of God. I believe that in reading the bible and understanding it and in discussing God amongst your peers, one can be actively Christian.

But that's just because I'm an Anglican, again.

But Anglicans celebrate Mass (well, they call it Eucharist).

But Anglicans celebrate Mass (well, they call it Eucharist).

That's still different.

That's still different.

How...I'm confused as to what you're going on about.

How...I'm confused as to what you're going on about.

It isn't in Latin and the wine and bread only represent the blood and body. In the core of Catholic doctrine, they actually become the body and blood of Christ (I think?)

But Anglicans celebrate Mass (well, they call it Eucharist).
That's probably because Henry VIII wasn't creative enough to think of a better name for it. But then again, that's coming from a Catholic, so obviously a bit biased.

I agree with whoever said that changing back to Latin would cause a greater problem than exist already. If you haven't noticed, most people don't like change even if it is to change back to something that did exist. Changing the mass into one universal language that is still living will certainly cause a major schism especially if it is English. But again, this bring up the point of comprehension. A poor Inca blooded Columbian will never be able to understand anything but her native Spanish, which would then not be understood by Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, and so on.

I personally don't like the complete departure from the Latin tradition. Although, I think that most masses should be in the vernacular language so as to allow comprehension, the Catholic Church should still retain a bit of its tradition. I would like to see a Latin mass be held at least once a year. At least so that people who didn't grow up with the Latin mass can experience what Catholic mass was like for well over 1,000 years.

But if you want to devote your efforts to uniting the Church, there are many more pressing issues dividing the Church than the language of the mass such as stem cell research, abortion, contreception, etc.

It isn't in Latin and the wine and bread only represent the blood and body. In the core of Catholic doctrine, they actually become the body and blood of Christ (I think?)
Nor is the Catholic mass, but you are correct about the bread and wine becoming body and blood of Christ. If I'm not mistaken that is only found in the Catholicism.

It isn't in Latin and the wine and bread only represent the blood and body. In the core of Catholic doctrine, they actually become the body and blood of Christ (I think?)

Ah, yes, now I get what you're going on about.