Why no more Latin?

[mango_2003]

Can someone please explain to me why Latin isn't the normal language at Mass anymore? I realize that Latin is still spoken at special Masses...but why not at a normal one?

I love Latin and would love to be able to attend a Latin Mass. Since I'm a (pseudo)Protestant, I don't know most of the responses in English...but since I've been in Choir my entire life, I know them in Latin...heh.

~mango~

[Iohannes]

Originally Posted by mango_2003

Can someone please explain to me why Latin isn't the normal language at Mass anymore? I realize that Latin is still spoken at special Masses...but why not at a normal one?

I love Latin and would love to be able to attend a Latin Mass. Since I'm a (pseudo)Protestant, I don't know most of the responses in English...but since I've been in Choir my entire life, I know them in Latin...heh.

~mango~

Latin still is the normal language of the Mass whether it is the New Mass or the Traditional Latin Mass, it is just many priest do not follow the norm anymore.

We use Ecclesiastical Latin for pronounciation instead of Classical Latin.

[Iohannes]

Although Vatican II intended to keep most parts of the Mass in Latin and give Latin a higher footing, most people thought it was the Green light to kill Latin in the Mass during the 1960's.

[Minerva]

what's a "pseudo-protestant"?

[Faustina]

Originally Posted by Minerva

what's a "pseudo-protestant"?

Someone who wants to be Catholic

[dumspirospero]

Then convert That is what I did and I haven't looked back since. I have accomplished a lot of things in my life...a lot of things I can be proud of, but nothing makes me prouder than making the choice to become a Catholic. It is the most defining moment of my life. Praise be to God.

Originally Posted by Faustina

Someone who wants to be Catholic

[siamesecat]

They changed it because people didnt understand Latin and should be able to understand the mass. It was used by the corrupt Church centuries ago to keep people from actually reading the bible, as these people didnt understand Latin, and so it was a privelege only the clergy could hold. Eventually the people got mad about this because they were being deceived and the bible was translated. I guess the same thing happened with mass. If you cant understand whats going on how can you believe in it..you need to understand god's teachings!

[squirt]

Originally Posted by siamesecat

They changed it because people didnt understand Latin and should be able to understand the mass. It was used by the corrupt Church centuries ago to keep people from actually reading the bible, as these people didnt understand Latin, and so it was a privelege only the clergy could hold. Eventually the people got mad about this because they were being deceived and the bible was translated. I guess the same thing happened with mass. If you cant understand whats going on how can you believe in it..you need to understand god's teachings!

hmmm ... how does a Mass in Latin prevent lay people from reading the Bible?

For a long time, Latin was the common language of the 'educated' in large portions of the world. Most of those who could read, could read Latin. As education became more widespread, other languages evolved, contact with other cultures ensued, et cetera, translation of the Bible to vernacular languages proceeded.

Nevertheless, the Mass continued to be said in Latin. Vernacular Bibles and Latin Masses coexisted for centuries.

(I'd be interested to know where you got your series of historical 'facts' ....)

[Confiteor]

People not understanding Latin wasn't the immediate cause for vernacular masses (they had missals with the English and the Latin), but masses weren't as participative --in an exterior sense-- before Vat II. (That doesn't mean people weren't devout and involved in an interior way, they just didn't have as many speaking parts.) One of the changes permitted (not required) was Mass in the vernacular. Some liturgists jumped on this as a way to increase "vocal" participation by the people in the pews.
Latin was still meant to be used and understood. Unfortunately, today many clergy and lay people have a fear of the unknown...many are too young to have been exposed to the Latin. It is an important part of our history and culture, and there is a movement to bring back more Tridentine (Old Style Latin masses) due to a perception that it is more reverent. (This may say more about the quality of the English liturgy than the virtures of the Latin ones.) Priests can say a "new" mass in Latin if they wish...

[siamesecat]

Originally Posted by squirt

hmmm ... how does a Mass in Latin prevent lay people from reading the Bible?

For a long time, Latin was the common language of the 'educated' in large portions of the world. Most of those who could read, could read Latin. As education became more widespread, other languages evolved, contact with other cultures ensued, et cetera, translation of the Bible to vernacular languages proceeded.

Nevertheless, the Mass continued to be said in Latin. Vernacular Bibles and Latin Masses coexisted for centuries.

(I'd be interested to know where you got your series of historical 'facts' ....)

It doesnt. It prevents people from understanding mass. I was comparing it to the translation of the bible so that it could be more widely understood. The bible went from latin to vernacular, as did mass. Clergy and upperclass could read Latin but lower class, which I belive was most of the church members, could not, and therefore were unable to understand it. Was it Calvin who wanted to translate the bible? I believe as less and less people understood Latin (it is a dead language and I dont know anybody who does) it was decided that masses should not be in Latin. The facts about the corrupt church and translating the bible came from my world history and geo book.

[squirt]

Originally Posted by siamesecat

Was it Calvin who wanted to translate the bible?

Hi siamesecat,

Lots of people wanted to translate the Bible. Translating into the vernacular is not the same as translating into English. There are lots of vernaculars out there.

There were probably different pressures for translating the Bible into the vernacular in anglophone cultures than in those whose languages had latin roots (like French, Spanish, Portugese, Italian, etc.)

High school textbooks, while interesting, do tend to gloss over a lot and generalize ... there are lots of good scholarly books on Church history (which certainly does have its episodes of corruption and scandal) that others on the board could probably recommend to you. You may still decide to come to the same conclusions as you hold now, but they might be better informed conclusions.

(As for your confirmation, since you introduced yourself on the board as an atheist, it might be best to delay for a while. I decided to go ahead with my confirmation when I was a teenager, despite not believing in God, and regretted it for a long time. Mostly it just made me feel like a hypocrite.)

[agname]

Originally Posted by siamesecat

It doesnt. It prevents people from understanding mass. I was comparing it to the translation of the bible so that it could be more widely understood. The bible went from latin to vernacular, as did mass. Clergy and upperclass could read Latin but lower class, which I belive was most of the church members, could not, and therefore were unable to understand it. Was it Calvin who wanted to translate the bible? I believe as less and less people understood Latin (it is a dead language and I dont know anybody who does) it was decided that masses should not be in Latin. The facts about the corrupt church and translating the bible came from my world history and geo book.

Good ole revisionistic history.

My history teacher...in college...told me that hundreds of thousands died during the Spanish Inquisition...he argued for nearly an hour with me...then finally...

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0406181026.asp

it was put to rest.

[bob]

Originally Posted by agname

Good ole revisionistic history.

My history teacher...in college...told me that hundreds of thousands died during the Spanish Inquisition...he argued for nearly an hour with me...then finally...

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0406181026.asp

it was put to rest.

All I can say is Wow!
Great site.

Now we need to convince the anti-Catholics of the Protestant propaganda.
Have you any source of the breakdown of the scholars involved in the study? How many non-Catholic scholars in that team.

You should start a new post with this powerful refutation of the Inquisition.

[bob]

Originally Posted by siamesecat

It doesnt. It prevents people from understanding mass. I was comparing it to the translation of the bible so that it could be more widely understood. The bible went from latin to vernacular, as did mass. Clergy and upperclass could read Latin but lower class, which I belive was most of the church members, could not, and therefore were unable to understand it. Was it Calvin who wanted to translate the bible? I believe as less and less people understood Latin (it is a dead language and I dont know anybody who does) it was decided that masses should not be in Latin. The facts about the corrupt church and translating the bible came from my world history and geo book.

Ok, I accept that you are an intelligent 15 year old honours student.

Could you enlighten me on where you learnt Catechism while preparing for Confirmation? We have a one-year Sunday classes preparing confirmants.

From what you state here on the forum, it seems that you prepared for confirmation in a Protestant institution. No offence meant here, just basing on the information that you have stated. No Catholic catechism class could have taught you that.

Read my earlier reply about use of Latin. It was more unifying than divisive.
Assuming that the Protestants were right about the "corrupt church" hiding the truth from the people by keeping the bible in Latin.
Who were those reformers? They were people who could read Latin! So what did the Church hide and from whom?

I repeat here, the early Church translated the bible from the original languages of Hebrew, Aramiac and Greek into the vernacular - the official language of the Roman Empire. No Protestant can claim that they were the first translators of the bible into vernacular!

Sure there were corrupt priests, bishops and popes, but these people were only a small percentage of the Church.
However, the teachings of the Church were always moral, and true to the bible.

You can never find in an organisation, church, etc a 100% walking living saints. That is Uthopia.
Look around your own family, friends and relatives.
Are they all 100% good and moral. Being atheist does not justify immorality. You yourself have a moral issue against murder.

You will do yourself a great justice to really see both sides of the coin where the Church is concerned.
Read Church history from the Catholic point of view instead of just Protestant and compare.
Read what the Catholic Church teaches about the issues you raised especially on morality.

You are on the threshold of adulthood, and those moral issues are going to mold the rest of your life.
Get it right, get it sound and you will be ok!
Get it wrong....disaster.

Even, if you are an atheist, I pray that you make the right decisions.

[Iohannes]

Originally Posted by siamesecat

They changed it because people didnt understand Latin and should be able to understand the mass. It was used by the corrupt Church centuries ago to keep people from actually reading the bible, as these people didnt understand Latin, and so it was a privelege only the clergy could hold. Eventually the people got mad about this because they were being deceived and the bible was translated. I guess the same thing happened with mass. If you cant understand whats going on how can you believe in it..you need to understand god's teachings!

Number one, your statements are ignorant and rude.

Number two, St. Jerome Translated the Scriptures into Vulgate Latin, so the Roman people could read and understand the scriptures.

Number three, what is now the Douay-Rheims Bible, was began before the King James Version.

Number four, books were expensive back then, to own one you had to be rich, the printing presses has not been invented yet. Many people were illiterate and could not read.

Number five, people back then were able to understand Catholicism and the Mass even if it was in Latin. In 1549 During Cranmers imposition of the Vernacular Book of Common Prayer, the folks of Devonshire revolted and demanded that their priest say the Sarum Mass in Latin.