Why no more Latin?


#1

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~


#2

[quote=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~
[/quote]

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.


#3

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.


#4

what’s a “pseudo-protestant”?


#5

[quote=Minerva]what’s a “pseudo-protestant”?
[/quote]

Someone who wants to be Catholic


#6

Then convert :slight_smile: 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.

[quote=Faustina]Someone who wants to be Catholic
[/quote]


#7

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!


#8

[quote=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!
[/quote]

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’ …)


#9

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…


#10

[quote=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!
[/quote]

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.


#11

If the Latin is what was still intended, even after Vatican II, then why does no church that I can find ever hold a Latin Mass (either the new or the Tridentine?) Is there any chance they might all be in Latin again? How did it start to happen that it all was in vernacular? If it were in Latin again, we wouldn’t have to have separate Anglo and Spanish Mass at each parish anymore, right, because we all would know the Mass in Latin.


#12

[quote=Cherub]If the Latin is what was still intended, even after Vatican II, then why does no church that I can find ever hold a Latin Mass (either the new or the Tridentine?) Is there any chance they might all be in Latin again? How did it start to happen that it all was in vernacular? If it were in Latin again, we wouldn’t have to have separate Anglo and Spanish Mass at each parish anymore, right, because we all would know the Mass in Latin.
[/quote]

The Bishops of Vatican II intended that Latin was to be preserved in the Latin Rite with some use of the vernacular in some parts of the Mass. 1964 Missal is a good example, I have seen the real red covered Missal itself.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2litur.htm

Read paragraph 36


#13

Iohannes, thank you. I have read it. It seems to be very clear. So again, why is it that there is no Latin anymore, anywhere I have ever gone to? Once I went somewhere and just one prayer and one song verse were in Latin at this place, but that is the only time ever I have heard Latin spoken in a Mass. Why is no one following this rule if it is indeed a rule?


#14

Cherub,

Do you want to find a Traditional Latin Mass? Tell us yourcity of residence and the diocesean seat and we’ll find it for you.


#15

I am southwest of the research triangle area in North Carolina, in the Diocese of Raleigh.


#16

[quote=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!
[/quote]

Piffle!!! Where did you get your misinformation. Please don’t pass on rumors like this to seriously questioning Catholics and others.


#17

[quote=Cherub]Iohannes, thank you. I have read it. It seems to be very clear. So again, why is it that there is no Latin anymore, anywhere I have ever gone to? Once I went somewhere and just one prayer and one song verse were in Latin at this place, but that is the only time ever I have heard Latin spoken in a Mass. Why is no one following this rule if it is indeed a rule?
[/quote]

One good reason is that liberals thinks it is too "pre-vatican II"ish.


#18

I am southwest of the research triangle area in North Carolina, in the Diocese of Raleigh

How far is that from Dunn - see this article

newsobserver.com/news/story/1401452p-7525200c.html

Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Dunn. Bishop F. Joseph Gossman has permitted Rev. Paul Parkerson to celebrate Latin Mass at the church once a month but that’s a start.


#19

Thank you. I have never heard of Dunn, but I have gone to Yahoo Maps and it looks like almost 3 hours to drive. :confused: And from what I read in the article, this is the only one allowed. So, if it is supposed to really be mostly in Latin, why is it only really in Latin in this one place in my whole state? And only just was allowed? It is kind of sad that there is only one place. Not very practical for getting to go.


#20

[quote=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’ …)
[/quote]

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.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.