Latin was not the first language used by Christians in the Mass.  Aramaic and many of the vernacular languages of the patristic church were used.  Greek, Hebrew, Arabic etc. were also used and replaced eventually with the Latin Mass.

Now, if the mass existed prior to the use of Latin (in which the use of Latin was greatly strengthened by the Council of Trent partly as a symbol of unity to counter the Protestant revolution) then it is reasonable to say that Latin is not necessary for the Mass, the mass does not need the language. What is the historical development that created Latin as an indispensable part of the mass...as if the language is a sacred element of the sacrifice...why has it become a necessity to the validity of any mass?

Many of the traditional catholic church traditions did not fall out of the sky, they were created through some very human process of adoption and sometimes appropriation of cultural symbols as Christianity progressed.

I know that much of the Latin traditions developed when the Constantine handed over many of the Roman empire buildings to the Church at the end of the empire's times.  And this process borrowed greatly from the Roman Empire.. I do believe many of the church's liturgy were invented or expressed at this time in history (around 3-400 AD)

Now, just because that cultural expression has become tradition, why are we limited to both Latin symbolism and Latin language arising from the Roman empire days?

Trickster

Bruce Ferguson

I apologize for calling you a troll. I still disagree with your post but I thought that I could be wrong and you might be in good faith and not a troll.

No problem Matto.  I have been involved in indigenous politics for 30 plus years and  so I have a good discipline in remaining objective and respectful while having to draw a line where people are disrespectful to me.  I am used to being called names and confronted in the political circles; I don't let it bother me as if I did I would become a nervous wrecked depressed person.  In CatholicInfo, the majority of people on this forum website are very respectful and very objective in stating their positions and disagreement with me.

I have done some theology and one of the areas I touched upon was the patristic church and how the Catholic community evolved.  I think the two components of the validity of the mass and the language used - and that did evolve into Latin - have their historic roots.   I think it is a logical and honest question to unpackage the notion that Latin is integrally part of the mass.

And disagree with my post, absolutely!  That is a good thing in my mind, I like conversation, of being challenged on my positions as that is the only way to learn.  You learn best, not from like minded people (although they can be supportive and gentle in their correction), but from people who disagree, as the first step to understanding a disagreement is to hear what the other person is saying first....so I do welcome your disagreements...and if I am lucky we will have many and then you will have to definitely be on my buddy list
 :boxer:

take care friend

Bruce

Latin is not intrinsic to our Catholic Faith.

The short version: your argument could be called a Straw Man.

Traditional Catholics worthy of the name -- those who know why they are trad (beyond mere emotion or nostalgia) -- are not driving 1 hour or more to get to Mass on Sunday so they can hear a particular language.

That would be a silly reason to stand aloof from the rest of the Church. It would be emotional, prejudice, and/or nostalgia and nothing more.

To paraphrase a neo-SSPX quote, if the only thing Vatican II did was release a new version of the Tridentine Mass -- nothing different, just translated into English -- Archbishop Lefebvre would never have started the SSPX.

It's true that putting the Sacred Liturgy into the vernacular is one element of the anti-liturgical heresy, but it's not the reason why we don't attend our local parishes of the Conciliar Catholic Church.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-Anti-Liturgical-Heresy

It's about the FAITH ITSELF, and the MASS which is the cornerstone of our Faith.

Thank you Matthew.  You make an awesome point and that is had Vatican II release a new version of the Tridentine Mass in English...that is extremely helpful in my understanding.  I have only heard the conversations based on the title of Latin Mass, so that is why I shared my understanding of the patristic church, etc.  

I'll give the anti-liturgical article a read and reflect more upon it..and get some reflection back to you for your thoughts.

Bruce

Latin is not intrinsic to our Catholic Faith.

The short version: your argument could be called a Straw Man.

Traditional Catholics worthy of the name -- those who know why they are trad (beyond mere emotion or nostalgia) -- are not driving 1 hour or more to get to Mass on Sunday so they can hear a particular language.

That would be a silly reason to stand aloof from the rest of the Church. It would be emotional, prejudice, and/or nostalgia and nothing more.

To paraphrase a neo-SSPX quote, if the only thing Vatican II did was release a new version of the Tridentine Mass -- nothing different, just translated into English -- Archbishop Lefebvre would never have started the SSPX.

It's true that putting the Sacred Liturgy into the vernacular is one element of the anti-liturgical heresy, but it's not the reason why we don't attend our local parishes of the Conciliar Catholic Church.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-Anti-Liturgical-Heresy

It's about the FAITH ITSELF, and the MASS which is the cornerstone of our Faith.

Hello Matthew, just finished the 11 characteristics and possible strategies (possibly implemented on an inter-generational basis) of the anti-liturgical heresy.  Noting that it was written in the early 1800's I found it to be very black and white assuming that modern day work is based on the same assumptions and objectives of the protestant movement in the 1500s.  I also don't know what the Abbot's context was in terms of what he was responding to and/or what motivated to write about what he percieved as an anti-liturgical movement in his time and place.

Incredibly indepth article... i will do some more research on the points as well as come up with some reflections and possibly post in on my blog and hopefully we can go through some points there.

Bruce

As an Old School Catholic going back way before Vatican 2 was ever
thought of.  The Mass in Latin in the Traditional Rite I am closure
to God and the Angels.  I never understood Latin except what I
have to know being an Altar Boy starting in 1957 and ending at
St. Dominic's Catholic Church in Washington, DC in the Dominican
Rite in 1969 when one sentence was allowed to be said in Latin
during the still Latin quit offertory prayers. I seen to remember
it was "Bene Dici Te" and translated to "Bless these Gifts".
When the Mass was beginning to be translated into English,
I first noticed the false translations in which lead myself and
others to question the Mass when it was unthinkable before.
Such as "All Men", which is actually true, but our Lord Jesus
Christ never said this at the last Supper. Other miss translations
that seen to blurred and questioned Catholic teachings. This is
when the big falling away begun.
As Sister explained in my early years, more grace in your soul,
more you understood the Mass. And, you do not have to be a
genius in the knowledge of the Latin Language.  It comes to you
by the increase of sanctifying grace. And this is what the novus
ordo church has forgotten, and they are so far from Catholic
teachings.
Even among the Dominican Fathers, there were dissension  on
the changes. The Liberal would not allow any more conservatives
to join their order, and they all died off leaving a very liberal
and progressive order that is far from the intentions of Saint
Dominic.

tkgs - Lay hand missiles are very young compared to the age of the tridentine/traditional mass.  You likely have misconceptions about how one can assist at mass.  

Trickster - Reflect on Canon 7 on the sacrifice of the mass from the council of trent 1562 - if anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the catholic church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathama."  

If the vernacular is something that God sees fitting for our time, then the church would have actually been able to give it to us.  Instead, our traditions were gutted across the board by the cowardly(Pius XII)/the communist "brother joseph"(John XXIII)/the son of a maranno Jєω false convert(Paul VI/whose mother was buried a mason), which resulted in the NO/the disaster we have today.

"By their fruits you shall know them."

It is clear with only a little bit of reflection, that what has occurred is not of God.  

 

I should have used the word "diplomat" when referring to Pacelli(everybody always refers to him as weak or cowardly, and it rubs off).  He was not really a coward.  He did what he did for a reason.  He was a liberal.

As an Old School Catholic going back way before Vatican 2 was ever
thought of.  The Mass in Latin in the Traditional Rite I am closure
to God and the Angels.  I never understood Latin except what I
have to know being an Altar Boy starting in 1957 and ending at
St. Dominic's Catholic Church in Washington, DC in the Dominican
Rite in 1969 when one sentence was allowed to be said in Latin
during the still Latin quit offertory prayers. I seen to remember
it was "Bene Dici Te" and translated to "Bless these Gifts".
When the Mass was beginning to be translated into English,
I first noticed the false translations in which lead myself and
others to question the Mass when it was unthinkable before.
Such as "All Men", which is actually true, but our Lord Jesus
Christ never said this at the last Supper. Other miss translations
that seen to blurred and questioned Catholic teachings. This is
when the big falling away begun.
As Sister explained in my early years, more grace in your soul,
more you understood the Mass. And, you do not have to be a
genius in the knowledge of the Latin Language.  It comes to you
by the increase of sanctifying grace. And this is what the novus
ordo church has forgotten, and they are so far from Catholic
teachings.
Even among the Dominican Fathers, there were dissension  on
the changes. The Liberal would not allow any more conservatives
to join their order, and they all died off leaving a very liberal
and progressive order that is far from the intentions of Saint
Dominic.

Hello RomanCatholic1953.  It sounds like you are about 6 years older than me given that you became an alter boy in 1957, which was the year I was born.   I share a lot of your experiences and memories too.  Back in the day, we were required to attend the parish in our geographical district, and even the the Archdiocese of Vancouver has had a long and sustained reputation of being conservative, I had the honor of being raised in a parish that anticipated the changes initiated by Vatican II.  Our parish architecturally was built in a manner where the alter was placed in the middle of the sanctuary.  Our Blessed Sacrament was to the side of the church and we were introduced to the folk mass at a very young age.  I remember the changes to recieving Holy Communion which to this kid was exciting and new.  I also remember the restrictiions that you talked about in the late 60s.  I never understood why we had to deny Latin.  I remember this solitary old nun who continued to wear her old habit and she seemed to be such a lonely figure... now a days, i think about how cruel the decision to deny people like those the mass they grew up with for 70-80 years.  God forgive us for that, as I am sure that the old sister has already done.

I agree with you on the translation points, although I don't pretend to know a whole lot at this point about what translation changes were made,etc.  I do know that we tried to balance the sacrificial meaning of the church (the Good FridaY) with the Holy Thursday notion of the Last Supper and community... I don't see this as necessarily wrong, but I think TC's have a good point in arguing that it de-emphasised the sacrifice.....and we also celebrate I hope the rest of the story which was the day Jesus went to all the lost souls and then rose on Suinday.   I am not sure, but my sense is that we ought to celebrate from an Easter Sunday perspective which equally values what Jesus showed us from Holy Thursday onwards to Sunday.

I know that Pope Benedict did a lot (being the scholar he is) to address those translation changes upsetting a lot of progressive Catholics today, but I think most of us grass root catholics understood things as a rebalancing and an openess to SSPX and other traditional peoples.

You are right I think about the politics too in the Church and that was one of a liberal phase where the kinds of things that happened to the Dominican Fathers happened elsewhere, but I think today in 2014 the pendulum has swung back to the right...so for us many liberals and progressives today, it is difficult for them to find a religious community to express their vocation...so there's a bit more to the story.  

I am not sure how many years have passed since you made the decision it seems to be Traditional Catholic, but there have been many changes to the Novus Ordo bringin us back to the at least the center.

Anyways, I look forward to your continued thinking on this and the sharing that you will no doubt do

Bruce