Why "dead" languages are important in liturgy

[Magdalenbrother]

In another thread on Christian exclusivism, I lamented the sudden change (or shall I use the word "cataclysm"?) in the Roman Catholic liturgy. This is the reply I got from someone who I surmise to be a member of the RCC:


Um, no, not ditched to please the Protestants, but replaced for good reason, namely to increase the involvement of the congregation, formerly quite audience-like, who now participate actively in the Mass.

In fact, most people who are sensitive to art and beauty in general say the same: the new Mass is ugly and overly rational. And too short. And verbose. And the priests add their own things in it. In some places, the Mass has become a communal circus in which the congregation, far from adoring God Almighty, adores itself. It has become a narcissistic and infantile thing, like the society outside the (ugly) church building.

One of the things that has contributed to make the Mass such a vulgar thing is the abandonment of Latin, a move that parallels the abandonment of Latin by the Reformation in the 16th century.

The people want to understand.

That's the trap, you see. God is not understandable at all and if you want to convey this to the congregation, methinks it is infinitely better to chant the Mass in a language which has not been stained and distorted by everyday use by the governement spinmakers, the media whores and the ordinary liars and shoddy minds who we all are. In fact, many Roman Catholic theological concepts cannot be rendered in any modern language. So, by changing the language, they have become alienated from their own tradition, their own creed. It's a tragedy!

I once asked a Carthusian monk why they had kept Latin in their daily prayer. He said: "If we pray in French, we don't have the impression that we are speaking to God."

I say Bravo!

If you don't believe that Latin is the perfect liturgical language for us Westerners, just compare Thomas Tallis' musical oeuvre in English and in Latin. The difference is enormous, and in fact Tallis didn't like writing music in English at all! He was so disgusted with the new liturgical norms that he started writing music for Latin again, and had not Elizabeth protected him, he may have gotten into serious trouble with the Reformation bigots in England.

Have you listened to "Spem in Alium", to the "Lamentationes Jeremiae Prophetae by Tallis? If you haven't, I'm sorry to say you are not only an uncultured Christian, but an uncultured human being tout court.

Yes, the cds are available on Amazon.com. The Tallis Scholars are first-rate. The Sixteen choir conducted by Harry Christophers are great too.

Did the Catholics want to please the Protestants?

They German-speaking "fathers" of the Vatican Council who were behind this disaster wanted first and foremost to please the world and the result is there: the churches are empty...

The people know what is true and beautiful. Not the experts on liturgy.

Requiescat in Pace (I'm speaking of the RCC)

[Solly]

In another thread on Christian exclusivism, I lamented the sudden change (or shall I use the word "cataclysm"?) in the Roman Catholic liturgy. This is the reply I got from someone who I surmise to be a member of the RCC:


In fact, most people who are sensitive to art and beauty in general say the same: the new Mass is ugly and overly rational. And too short. And verbose. And the priests add their own things in it. In some places, the Mass has become a communal circus in which the congregation, far from adoring God Almighty, adores itself. It has become a narcissistic and infantile thing, like the society outside the (ugly) church building.

One of the things that has contributed to make the Mass such a vulgar thing is the abandonment of Latin, a move that parallels the abandonment of Latin by the Reformation in the 16th century.

The people want to understand.

That's the trap, you see. God is not understandable at all and if you want to convey this to the congregation, methinks it is infinitely better to chant the Mass in a language which has not been stained and distorted by everyday use by the governement spinmakers, the media whores and the ordinary liars and shoddy minds who we all are. In fact, many Roman Catholic theological concepts cannot be rendered in any modern language. So, by changing the language, they have become alienated from their own tradition, their own creed. It's a tragedy!

I once asked a Carthusian monk why they had kept Latin in their daily prayer. He said: "If we pray in French, we don't have the impression that we are speaking to God."

I say Bravo!

If you don't believe that Latin is the perfect liturgical language for us Westerners, just compare Thomas Tallis' musical oeuvre in English and in Latin. The difference is enormous, and in fact Tallis didn't like writing music in English at all! He was so disgusted with the new liturgical norms that he started writing music for Latin again, and had not Elizabeth protected him, he may have gotten into serious trouble with the Reformation bigots in England.

Have you listened to "Spem in Alium", to the "Lamentationes Jeremiae Prophetae by Tallis? If you haven't, I'm sorry to say you are not only an uncultured Christian, but an uncultured human being tout court.

Yes, the cds are available on Amazon.com. The Tallis Scholars are first-rate. The Sixteen choir conducted by Harry Christophers are great too.

Did the Catholics want to please the Protestants?

They German-speaking "fathers" of the Vatican Council who were behind this disaster wanted first and foremost to please the world and the result is there: the churches are empty...

The people know what is true and beautiful. Not the experts on liturgy.

Requiescat in Pace (I'm speaking of the RCC)

I love the works of Thomas Tallis, he is one of my favourites. Spem in Alium is up there with Allegri's Miserere.
I think English has a beauty of its own, but at times people try for the common touch instead of oratorical beauty. The Book of Common Prayer is a masterpiece of the English language, as is the 1611 translation in so far as it is derived from Tyndale, and tinkered with.
But English writers also produced great church music, Byrd, Purcell etc.

[David Hayward]

Um, no, not ditched to please the Protestants, but replaced for good reason, namely to increase the involvement of the congregation, formerly quite audience-like, who now participate actively in the Mass.

My words, above, seeking to correct the unjustified claim that the abandonment of the Latin Mass was to please Protestants - whatever for? Protestants don't attend! The RCC position on the reasons for the change is clear-cut, and is as I have succinctly paraphrased above.

I have the disadvantage in this discussion of never having attended a Latin Mass, having first gone to a RCC church only six or so years ago; what kept this potential Steamer clone in the pews was the pervading sense of of worship, of devotion, so absent (in my experience) from other churches and Churches; I felt at home there. The Neo-Catechumenate influenced Priest there at the time sealed it.

I can certainly agree with you about the modern Mass being short. Gaps and pauses which could be there and should be there are usually left unopened. There is even a pride amongst some Priests that they rattle through the Mass, and the occasional proud announcement that today they have pleased <some of!> the congregation by rattling through in especially quick time.
Also, the English version of the modern Mass has been the subject of much criticism, and pressure for reform, from the Vatican, which obviously partially agrees with you (as do I.) There is plainly room for improvement.

I am not at all sure what you mean when you refer to the self-adoration of the congregation.

Where I disagree with you is that Latin can and should take the place of English in the Liturgy, and that it would be improved thereby - not for me it wouldn't. I want to understand what I am saying. But I do not speak Latin. To worship with the deepness of devotion that full understanding and intent allows requires understanding what I am meaning via understanding what I am saying - which Latin denies me. Words devoid of meaning, contentless babble, - a worse position than the ignorant Omitofos.

I understand that the Vulgate bible the Latin Mass is based upon is decidedly inferior to modern English bibles based upon modern scholarship; this is said partly tongue-in-cheek because the Jerusalem Bible used in the modern Mass is occasionally startlingly different from other bibles - its replacement by the New Jerusalem Bible would be appreciated.

I too am "the people" and a Latin Mass would not do for me.

David

[Magdalenbrother]

Thank you for your thoughtful replies, Solly and David Hayward.

Something my Carthusian interlocutor also told me in an usual display of candor is that if they celebrated the whole Holy Office in French (7 times a day monks praise and pray God either in church or in their cells), they would get crazy because of the repetitive character of the liturgy. What he was in effect telling me is that it is good for the mind not to be able to understand the words too clearly, so that it doesn't get burdened with ideas and thoughts associated with the words.

Then you can simply focus on the presence of God, who is supremely simple and one, and forget all the details, ie that He prefers "the tents of Jacob" or the "hills of Zion" above everything else in the universe (think of the stupidity of it all! God, who possesses the whole universe, prefers the stinking goatskin tents of dishonest Jacob! don't you think itwould be better to say that in Latin?). Or, if you are singing, simply let the melody and the rhythm take you beyond the intellect. Methinks there are lots of people today who are terribly afraid to let go of their (oh how limited!) understanding of God. Latin words could in a way be compared with the unintelligible babble of Pentecostals in trance: they have no connotations (very important!), and if you don't understand Latin perfectly, no precise meaning. This is perfect to adore God. For it is God whom we adore, a being who is beyond the whole created realm, a being "who dwells in unapproachable light", not the State or some petty human being, entities that are intelligible and ordinary.

When you use vernacular you make God cheap, sorry. God becomes your pal. This may be very democratic, very comforting, even flattering, but God is above all that. We have to treat God as God.

(The objection that it is Jesus whom the Christians adore is not an excuse for becoming vulgar)

I think that people go to church not to get busy again with the liturgy (they are already so busy outside church!), but to peacefully repose in God's presence. They don't need to be indoctrinated (catechism exists for something, doesn't it?), they don't need to know lots of things about God (knowledge about God is essentially useless), what they need is a sense of peace and stability, a sense of eternity. This sense of profound immutability can only be preserved if you don't touch the liturgy and use a language which is fixed and sacred.

In a modern Catholic Mass, the gestures and the words are changing all the time. There are priests and monks who seem to think that the liturgy is like a TV show that needs constant renewal. They are wrong. God doesn't need our creative efforts. Catholics should be immensely grateful to have a magnificent liturgy and a corpus of chants that has come down to them through hundreds of years of inspired work. Let them first understand deeply what they have and then, if something is found lacking, let them innovate. But what we have seen is ignorant and prejudiced people throwing away treasures which they didn't care to appreciate or to learn to interpret. What a sad thing! I can't help feeling that some liturgical revolutionaries knew exactly what they were doing and were part of a plot to plunge the Church in complete disarray. The Catholic Church has enemies, both spiritual and physical.

While the Catholics are stupidly discarding beautiful Latin, many Westerners are spending a lot of energy and money to be able to recite scriptures in Pali, Sanskrit or Tibetan. The irony of it all ! And the most successful religion of modern times prohibits the translation of its Holy Coran, which must be recited in classical Arabic. This shows that exotic or so-called dead languages have never been an obstacle to the dissemination of religion. On the contrary, to take the example of Islam again, there are many people who are attracted to this faith because of the incredible beauty and power of the language of Muhammad.

Let me end with a remark I once heard a young, intelligent priest who used Latin during the Mass say to a parishioner who objected that she didn't understand what he was saying during the Consecration (when the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus, magnum mysterium!):

"If I said it in French, would you really understand it better? Can you understand that bread becomes the flesh of God? I can't. So I prefer to say it in Latin to remind myself that I shouldn't take the mystery of God's incarnation for granted. With Latin, it always remains beyond. With French I have the illusion that I know what I'm talking about. "

[David Hayward]

Something my Carthusian interlocutor also told me in an usual display of candor is that if they celebrated the whole Holy Office in French (7 times a day monks praise and pray God either in church or in their cells), they would get crazy because of the repetitive character of the liturgy. What he was in effect telling me is that it is good for the mind not to be able to understand the words too clearly, so that it doesn't get burdened with ideas and thoughts associated with the words. ...etc."

Magdalenbrother, I think you will be interested in this :

The Irish Times, 7 May 2002[/color]]Most people believe in God. Most people pray, at least sometimes. Yet the Christian Church is dying.
Part of this is a general lack of enthusiasm for belonging to any organisation. Part of it is a disenchantment with hierarchical, authoritarian or sexist structures. But at the root of the decline is a change in belief about God. And almost nobody is talking about it.
A crisis in the churches, Catholic and Protestant, is boiling up underground and is beginning to break through here and there …shows clearly that the crisis is about the difference between intellectual expressions of faith and more intuitive ways of expressing it.
It is with the intuitive right side of the brain that people experience God: which is why so many find they are nearer to God in nature. It is with the right-brain that we appreciate beautiful cathedrals, religious art and music. Yet organised worship is left-brain fodder, rational and wordy: prayers, readings, creeds, homilies.
'By love God may be caught and held; by thinking, never,' says the anonymous 14th century writer of The Cloud of Unknowing. Here is the crux of the matter: all credal statements about God have come from the analytical side of the human brain, and with that left-side they are now heard by churchgoers and church-refusers alike. Yet the impulse to make those statements must have come originally from right-side experiences of the reality of God.
Over past decades many writers, preachers and teachers have been signalling the need for new thinking. Many clergy and laypeople have privately adapted what they were taught; and go on playing 'The Emperor's New Clothes'.

A related note on the ignorant Omitofos: I am convinced that somewhere in Essays in Zen Buddhism, Second Series, DT Suzuki remarks in an essay on Pure Land Buddhism that there are more enlightened Pure Land (devotional, using a mantra as their main method) Buddhists than there are enlightened Zen (intellectual) Buddhists. (Mind you, this may be a numbers thing - Zen is for the elite, Pure Land for the masses - but Suzuki's respect shows through.) (And you will be interested he comments that the Chinese O-mi-to-fo version (of the original Sanskrit "Namo amitabhasya buddho" mantra) is more effective than the Japanese Nembutsu.)

The Cloud of Unknowing is one of two main emphases in the eponymous book, the other being engendering the Cloud of Forgetting - very radically non-intellectual!

The point I am making is yours : devotional practices can be more effective than intellectual practices, both in Christianity and elsewhere.
But it's not either/or, and everybody's different.

David

[Magdalenbrother]

Magdalenbrother, I think you will be interested in this :

The Irish Times, 7 May 2002[/color]]Most people believe in God. Most people pray, at least sometimes. Yet the Christian Church is dying.
Part of this is a general lack of enthusiasm for belonging to any organisation. Part of it is a disenchantment with hierarchical, authoritarian or sexist structures. But at the root of the decline is a change in belief about God. And almost nobody is talking about it.
A crisis in the churches, Catholic and Protestant, is boiling up underground and is beginning to break through here and there …shows clearly that the crisis is about the difference between intellectual expressions of faith and more intuitive ways of expressing it.
It is with the intuitive right side of the brain that people experience God: which is why so many find they are nearer to God in nature. It is with the right-brain that we appreciate beautiful cathedrals, religious art and music. Yet organised worship is left-brain fodder, rational and wordy: prayers, readings, creeds, homilies.
'By love God may be caught and held; by thinking, never,' says the anonymous 14th century writer of The Cloud of Unknowing. Here is the crux of the matter: all credal statements about God have come from the analytical side of the human brain, and with that left-side they are now heard by churchgoers and church-refusers alike. Yet the impulse to make those statements must have come originally from right-side experiences of the reality of God.
Over past decades many writers, preachers and teachers have been signalling the need for new thinking. Many clergy and laypeople have privately adapted what they were taught; and go on playing 'The Emperor's New Clothes'.

A related note on the ignorant Omitofos: I am convinced that somewhere in Essays in Zen Buddhism, Second Series, DT Suzuki remarks in an essay on Pure Land Buddhism that there are more enlightened Pure Land (devotional, using a mantra as their main method) Buddhists than there are enlightened Zen (intellectual) Buddhists. (Mind you, this may be a numbers thing - Zen is for the elite, Pure Land for the masses - but Suzuki's respect shows through.) (And you will be interested he comments that the Chinese O-mi-to-fo version (of the original Sanskrit "Namo amitabhasya buddho" mantra) is more effective than the Japanese Nembutsu.)

The Cloud of Unknowing is one of two main emphases in the eponymous book, the other being engendering the Cloud of Forgetting - very radically non-intellectual!

The point I am making is yours : devotional practices can be more effective than intellectual practices, both in Christianity and elsewhere.
But it's not either/or, and everybody's different.

David
The argument that everyone's different is interesting. For me it smacks of moral relativism:"Don't interfere with MY ways, I'm different." (I'm not saying this to you personally, so don't get offended. I don't know you at all, so I'm not trying to analyze your reactions. )

Everyone's different.

First is it true? Yes and no. Essentially we are all the same: we all suffer. Krishnamurti said: "Your brain is not your brain. " And: "You are humanity".
This means that some general laws apply to all human beings. Moral laws, and also psychosomatic laws that have a bearing on prayer or meditation. After all, "John" says that God seeks people who adore Him with their breath (pneumati) and in non-forgetting(a-letheiai). While some people may need to use their intellects at some stage in their spiritual development, all mystics are unanimous in saying that this is not the end of the path. Their testimony is confirmed by the Gospel which praises "foolishness" (Paul) and condemns the "wise and prudent"(Matthew). In my opinion one has to choose betwen thinking or breathing. If one thinks one cannot breathe deeply. And without deep breathing there is no relaxation, and without relaxation there is no possibility to focus on the Now, where God is eternally present. It is as simple as that!

I remember that in your previous reply you said you too were the people and you didn't like Latin. The fact is you have never tried it. You don't know what you are missing! I saw the first ancient Mass when I was 24 in a traditionalist monastery in Southern France (St Madeleine, go there if you want to experience the wonder of real liturgy) and the beauty of it just left me breathless. Ever since, I have wondered how the idea to ditch it could ever enter their minds. It must have been because of some silly ideology or because of the hatred of beauty and tradition. This kind of hatred runs very deep in the hearts of vile people as Ernst Juenger once noted in his marvellous "On the Marble Cliffs".

If I had been a priest in the seventies, I would certainly have resisted the change with all my heart and strength. But most priests complied, as if the old liturgy meant nothing to them! In China, they (the official Communist-controlled Catholic church) kept the Latin Mass until very recently. I guess the Chinese government found the Latin Mass safer since in their opinion nobody could understand it. How wrong they were! I know lots of people who became Catholics and abandoned Protestantism just because they had been touched by the beauty of the chanting. When they introduced the new thing, they still kept the ancient liturgy for the older people who were used to it, so as to create no shock. How wise! I wish they had done the same in Europe, specially in France, where the battle around the Mass was fought most fiercely.

My mum is "the people" too and she doesn't like the "old" Mass but my father, who certainly has a right to say that he is "the people", loathes the new liturgy and almost never goes to Mass. I never go to Mass, except in monasteries where it is celebrated with sufficient pomp and respect. They say Jesus is present in the Host whether they sing rock-and-roll or plainchant but this argument doesn't impress me in the least: what's the use of receiving Jesus if one's heart is in turmoil because of the (wordly) music?

I don't think that any musical or artistic form is conducive to prayer and adoration. For we moderns this is hard to swallow: we seem to think that form is irrelevant, what matters is our intentions, the mental content. I have noticed though that this argument is always used against Gregorian chant. But if form is not important, why not use Gregorian chant? If you ask that clever question to a modernist, chances are that he will call you a "stupid traditionalist" (the equivalent of the "ignorant Omitofos", I suppose) and walk away...

Nembutsu is less efficient than Namo Omitofo? Why not? Words have different frequencies, different physical and energetic qualities, you know. Most people here fall in the trap of thinking that prayer and religion in general have very little, if anything, to do with the body, with physical reality. To which I reply: try to pray when you have a phenomenal indigestion! Latin has different physical and energetic properties than English or French. I have heard very committed liturgists, who were not traditionalists, complain about the lack of musicality of the French language. They say for example that it is almost hopeless to try to sing the Gospel because French is not musical enough. But Slavonic or old Greek are just wonderful. Dutch and German are terrible. English is slightly better but still quite inferior to Latin.

Why? because Latin has a more harmonious distribution of vowels.

Consonants are noisy stops whereas vowels are the free, unimpeded voice. Meditate on this, please. That will help you understand this whole issue from a scientific point of view. Phonetics (and singing) is a science (singing is also an art which requirestechnique), so I don't think it is fair to accuse people who love Latin and other forms of being ignorant, primitive anti-intellectuals.

Let me finally address the argument that when we pray we want words that are intelligible so that we may really mean what we say.

The first thing I'd like to say is that private prayer is infinitely less powerful than communal prayer. Jesus said it: "When two or three are united in my name, I am in the middle of them." That is why the liturgy is soooo important. Irreplaceable. Now if the communal prayers change every sunday, chances are that peole will not take them seriously. They will not take them seriously if they are printed on cheap leaflets. In the past, people had beautiful missals and the monks had huge books with fine calligraphy. In those blessed times, words had weight. They had weight because they didn't change and they were in a language that was beyond the trivialities of everyday life. That's one point.

The second point is that I think our "sincerity" means nothing. We promise God eternal love but we betray him the next moment. Ain't I telling the truth here? I have been through all this. The mind is in perpetual movement, loving God now and lusting after my neighbor the next moment. Our intentions are worthless, as worthless as the "I" who utters the prayers in English or French. But the problem for a Christian is that he/she is intimately convinced that "I" not only exists but is loved by God and that the "I" will live for ever in paradise. As long as one is under this fundamental delusion, one cannot understand how worthless most of our so-called "sincere prayers" are.

Jesus said it: no repetition, please, God knows everything you need and everything you want to say even before you think about it. What God needs is not our (changeable and fragile) intentions, resolutions and other mental rubbish, but our silence. Absolute silence coming from deep within. IOW, He wants our (psychological) death. That's the mystery of the Holy Cross.

I believe that Latin is conducive to that sacred silence. Credo (no "I " here as you can see!).

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Magbro

[revivalfire]

First off, you base being uncultured by whether we listen to a certain type of music in a certain type of language?? How foolish and nearsighted. True, Latin is important, I'm not downing it, but Christ came not to still be a God who rules and dictates and commands, but to be a servant who helps, heals, and saves. It seems thta you have missed this point. We have a very personal relationship with God, that is how Pentecostals speak in Tongues. It is nothing they do (although there are many fakes) but it is evidence of what God is doing in them. I'm shocked that supposed scholars such as you would refuse to understand this.

[mong00se]

The people want to understand.

That's the trap, you see. God is not understandable at all and if you want to convey this to the congregation, methinks it is infinitely better to chant the Mass in a language which has not been stained and distorted by everyday use by the governement spinmakers, the media whores and the ordinary liars and shoddy minds who we all are. Greetings, fratrelli. This is one of my first posts, so please excuse any lapses in custom or protocol...etc.

Magdalenbrother, you have a very interesting point here. But i have a few objections.
-If the vernacular is so completely incapable of conveying the mysteries contained within the Mass, liturgy, etc...how do we explain how the liturgy was celebrated at the beginning of the Church, before Latin and Koine Greek became inexorable, unapproachable languages? The First Mass was celebrated most likely in Aramaic, the language of the apostles, or (worst/best case) in Koine Greek, which was the universal language used to communicate to anyone throughout the Empire. The preaching of the Eucharist was done in the same manner.
-God is infinitely high above every human language, including the Latin we hold in such high esteem (though perhaps for different reasons). However, in His infinite goodness and love, He deigned to reveal himself to humans in human language. Ultimately, the fullness of that Revelation was the Incarnation...in which God revealed the mysteries of his inner workings (or at least some of them) through the life, and the words, of Christ. When Christ spoke the words, he was using the same language that the tax collector down the road was accosting poor widows for their last penny with, the same language that idle women gossiped with. Was this an insult to God? Should we stay away from the words of Christ because they are too close to man?

Of course, not all langauges are equal. As I am learning, Ancient Greek is the most excellent for expressing ancient philosophical concepts, and German for modern philosophy. Similarly, Latin (aided by Greek) is the fullest language for expressing RCC theology. Would the Mass be better in another language? Let the debate begin. Is the modern translation of the Mass a typical ICEL work of blah? Yes. But some of your underlying attitudes in the OP (that it is virtual blasphemy to have a Mass in English) needed to be drawn out and responded to.
Deus immensus ad mysteria sui immensa per verba parvula te ducat.

Peace be with you,
mong00se

[Timothy Leary]

On the other hand, Christianity existed before Latin, did it not? And when it did, wasn't it the common language?

[shunyadragon]

In another thread on Christian exclusivism, I lamented the sudden change (or shall I use the word "cataclysm"?) in the Roman Catholic liturgy. This is the reply I got from someone who I surmise to be a member of the RCC:


Did the Catholics want to please the Protestants?

They German-speaking "fathers" of the Vatican Council who were behind this disaster wanted first and foremost to please the world and the result is there: the churches are empty...

The people know what is true and beautiful. Not the experts on liturgy.

Requiescat in Pace (I'm speaking of the RCC)I found this post interesting, since I grew up in the Roman Church, including 13 years in Central and South America. I attended the Roman Church's school, or juvinile religous boot camps, learned Spanish, Latin and French at the unfortunate expense of English, which I had to partially relearn when I returned to finish college in the US. I later began to study, and still do the history, theology and nature of religion and philosophy.

I do not think it was done to please the protestants. You must remember the masses were writen in Latin when it was the common language of the time. Before that Greek and armeic as mentioned before, times change, so do languages.

I would ask the monk that is living in the past, "Is Latin the only language God understands?"

I have little in the way of nostalgia for the old or new Roman Church, since I consider them both anacronisms in time and place, and irrelavent to the universal spiritual grace they claim as universal. Litergy, ritual, orthodoxy and doctrine is superficial in all the religions of the world. The dead languages need to be kept alive, sometimes on life support, to help us understand history and evolution of human nature.

Appreciating and understanding the past is part of the whole, but living in the past is a drag, ah . . . something like carrying around a sack of bowling balls.

[Magdalenbrother]

Greetings, fratrelli. This is one of my first posts, so please excuse any lapses in custom or protocol...etc.

Magdalenbrother, you have a very interesting point here. But i have a few objections.
-If the vernacular is so completely incapable of conveying the mysteries contained within the Mass, liturgy, etc...how do we explain how the liturgy was celebrated at the beginning of the Church, before Latin and Koine Greek became inexorable, unapproachable languages? The First Mass was celebrated most likely in Aramaic, the language of the apostles, or (worst/best case) in Koine Greek, which was the universal language used to communicate to anyone throughout the Empire. The preaching of the Eucharist was done in the same manner.
-God is infinitely high above every human language, including the Latin we hold in such high esteem (though perhaps for different reasons). However, in His infinite goodness and love, He deigned to reveal himself to humans in human language. Ultimately, the fullness of that Revelation was the Incarnation...in which God revealed the mysteries of his inner workings (or at least some of them) through the life, and the words, of Christ. When Christ spoke the words, he was using the same language that the tax collector down the road was accosting poor widows for their last penny with, the same language that idle women gossiped with. Was this an insult to God? Should we stay away from the words of Christ because they are too close to man?

Of course, not all langauges are equal. As I am learning, Ancient Greek is the most excellent for expressing ancient philosophical concepts, and German for modern philosophy. Similarly, Latin (aided by Greek) is the fullest language for expressing RCC theology. Would the Mass be better in another language? Let the debate begin. Is the modern translation of the Mass a typical ICEL work of blah? Yes. But some of your underlying attitudes in the OP (that it is virtual blasphemy to have a Mass in English) needed to be drawn out and responded to.
Deus immensus ad mysteria sui immensa per verba parvula te ducat.

Peace be with you,
mong00seThank you for this thoughtful reply, beloved Mongoose.

Let me first make a clarification before I enter the discussion with you:

I don't think that Latin is the only sacred language worthy of being used in liturgy. Other languages with remarkable phonetic and other qualities can be used to express the adoration, praise and supplication of the community for and to the Divine Being. It is a question of high sensitivity and sacred knowledge on the part of those who celebrate the Divine Office, which is the most important work the Church has to perform here on earth, as is shown by Jesus' reply to the people who wanted to use the Magdalen's spikenard for the poor.

Now let me answer your objections point by point:


If the vernacular is so completely incapable of conveying the mysteries contained within the Mass, liturgy, etc...how do we explain how the liturgy was celebrated at the beginning of the Church, before Latin and Koine Greek became inexorable, unapproachable languages? The First Mass was celebrated most likely in Aramaic, the language of the apostles, or (worst/best case) in Koine Greek, which was the universal language used to communicate to anyone throughout the Empire. The preaching of the Eucharist was done in the same manner.
I have nothing against the vernacular when the vernacular is able to convey the divine mysteries. Missionaries have often marvelled at the beauty of the liturgy when translated in some very musical African languages. But it seems to me that because of the law of universal entropy (let us call it "inexorable degeneration" to sound less pedantic) and other factors, modern vernacular languages are no longer fit for liturgy. French, my own native language, for example, has no special vocabulary to express Roman Catholic concepts and its sounds are both impure (not in a moral sense!) and too soft, its words too long and its grammar too complicated. What can be said with one resounding word in Latin takes three or four feeble words in French.

French has a remarkable and unequalled terminology for philosophy and other fields of intellectual enquiry but for liturgical uses it is simply NIL (nul in French!). This has to do with Descartes and the very strong anticlerical movement in France, which began precisely when French was becoming the dominant language in all spheres of life. In France, we also have the aggravating circumstance that folk musical traditions have died out completely. In fact, it looks as though there never was a rich repertoire of folksongs, music being essentially an affair of specialists (trouvères and troubadours).

I remember a conversation with a monk from a French Orthodox monastery near Carcassonne in Southern France (a delightful place for retreats!). He, the choirmaster of his convent, had been invited to a Greek party. During the copious meal, he was treated to a concert of folksongs by his hosts which absolutely thrilled him. The beauty and power of their singing was amazing, specially since these people were not artists, just ordinary folk! But when they asked him, out of courtesy I suppose, to sing something typically French, it dawned upon him that he, as a Frenchman living in the 21st century with a lot of musical knowledge, had nothing that could compare with the rich musical skills and magnificent repertoire of his Greek friends. Nothing. His own French Byzantine repertoire was just a pale copy of the musical tradition of his Greek hosts. "Here in France, he said to me mournfully, we seem to have lost the vital custom of singing, of expressing our souls through chants with a rich emotional content: we have become too intellectual!"

Hence, I think, the difficulty to create a truly beautiful liturgy in French, a liturgy that appeals not only to the head but more importantly, to the heart! Just listen to the Salve Regina in Latin and then to its translation in French: it's hopeless (there is also a problem with the vocalic system of French, but I will not enlarge on this point, this is too technical).

Another point I would like to make is that I don't believe that the earliest liturgies of the Church were necessarily the best. This is the "remotest-past-is-always-best illusion" (this also applies to theology, by the way), a variant of the Rousseauist bon sauvage fallacy. We know through Paul's fulminations that the the first Eucharists were very informal meetings at which people simply ate and drank. Obviously, at that time, the Christians had not yet been able to find the appropriate forms to worship the Lord in eating and drinking. This would take many, many years and systematic, shameless, often unavowed borrowing from older traditions such as the Egyptian and Jewish religion. Gregorian plainchant is said to be a direct descendant of Temple chant. Many liturgical ornaments are Egytian in origin. Christian churches are modelled on Roman basilicae.

I have said that I had nothing against the vernacular in principle, but I need to qualify this position now by adding that even if the vernacular possesses all the qualities necessary for a sacred liturgy (I insist on the word "sacred"!!!), it is still at a disadvantage vis-à-vis a sacred language no longer in everyday use because vernacular language has lots of connotations and meanings which must disturb or even derail the mind in contemplation.

When the language is not in daily use, people use what I'd call "pure" concepts in their prayer. When I use "Deus" in Latin, my mind does not create all the pleasant or unpleasant associations evoked by "Dieu" in French. Now this argument is only relevant if you have a mystical, non conceptual approach to religion. I spoke before of the mind of the believer in contemplation. If you believe that religious knowledge is all-important and that the main purpose of the liturgy is to fill people's minds with ideas, you must disagree with me or at least find my argument unconvincing. The crucial question is: what do you think is the main purpose of liturgy? If it's contemplation, then away with the vernacular! If it's instruction, then the vernacular becomes indispensable.

Another profound question is: how does one apprehend God? Does man understand God with his brains or with something else? Is there something called "insight" or "intuitive knowledge"? Depending on this essential point of spiritual anthropology, you will either defend or abandon the use of so-called unintelligible languages in liturgy.

The problem today is that people have (or say they have) very little time to devote to either mastering good singing skills or learning a sacred language (except if it's extravagantly exotic and fashionable like Pali or Koine Greek of course!!!). More importantly, they also have (or pretend to have) very little time to study the scriptures and the liturgy. So pastors and priests alike are virtually obliged to compensate for the appalling religious ignorance of the masses and their laziness by putting into the weekly religious session they are willing to attend as much content as possible. Hence the necessity of the vernacular languages.

Deep sigh..................


God is infinitely high above every human language, including the Latin we hold in such high esteem (though perhaps for different reasons). However, in His infinite goodness and love, He deigned to reveal himself to humans in human language. Ultimately, the fullness of that Revelation was the Incarnation...in which God revealed the mysteries of his inner workings (or at least some of them) through the life, and the words, of Christ. When Christ spoke the words, he was using the same language that the tax collector down the road was accosting poor widows for their last penny with, the same language that idle women gossiped with. Was this an insult to God? Should we stay away from the words of Christ because they are too close to man?
There is a very strong but marginalized tradition in Christianity (Origen) which claims that, through His Incarnation, God, far from making His mysteries more accessible to man, has made them even more obscure. "To re-veal" means literally "to veil once more": in Jesus God has re-vealed himself. So since I am absolutely convinced that the most obvious and understandable things are in fact the most mysterious, and I don't want to take anything for granted, I don't agree with the theory that through the Incarnation God has somehow become "ordinary" and that we should therefore hold "domestic" liturgies.

I also reject the modern view of Jesus and God as "nice" people who want to pamper us. God is not Santa Klaus. God is an awesome entity and His son was not always "nice". I love the pictures in the Russian Orthodox tradition of Jesus with the fiery eyes. God is the mystery which is beyond. Even when he puts on the flesh, He remains beyond and accessible only to those who can see beyond, with eyes which are not of the (useless and perishable) flesh. Most people didn't see Jesus for whom he truly was. They were deceived by his ordinariness. Here we see God's apparent mercy work against conversion. Remember the words of Jesus about the meaning of the parables: their simplicity is designed to cheat.

The constant temptation is to try to absorb God into ourn own pettiness (is He not the son of Joseph the carpenter?). To make him into our image instead of letting Him make us into His image.

To use ordinary language makes God ordinary, sorry. I don't think a God who is directly accessible is the true living God. The guest who hadn't put the right clothes on was expelled from the banquet of the bridegroom.

We know through the barenness of our own spiritual lives and the difficulty to change our sinful ways that Incarnation or not, Jesus or not, God remains hidden in unapproachable light. God doesn't put the gold of his grace on dirt, even if it bears the label of a church. We are still very far from Heaven. Don't let us pretend we are already there.

Latin is not that difficult. Why not learn it? The Muslims learn classical Arabic.

Are we lazy? Or vain?

PS: Question for all to ponder on: why do most Christians still use "Amen", "Abba", "Yahveh", "Maranatha", "Halleluyah" and "Kyrie Eleison"? Why do you say "Jesus" instead of "God-saves"?

[freelight]

Hello Mb,..............this is a wonderful topic. Language is the expression of logos...and so inter-dimensional. This is wonderfully magnified in the light of our worship of the ONE. I dont believe I have ever attended a full mass in Latin...but am interested in having the experience. Perhaps some catholic churches still do? Also...I have been interested in attending a Greek Orthodox service.(do they do their masses/services in greek/latin?). The sacramental appeals to me...and spiritual language of the soul in particular...when used in devotion and worship.

I have had wonderful experiences in sacred logos, spiritual tongues. This began thru the dynamic and teaching of a more pentecostal/charasmatic christianity. It is most wondrous to speak in a sacred tongue as your spirit is so inspired. I have found such utterance to be a language of pure feeling...from ones being - the core of their heart. Prayers, devotions in ones native tongue/understanding are of course intelligible enough...but a more spiritual tongue transcends the intellect and radiates on the plane of Spirit or Soul. Both are essential in worship according to their proper applications.

I have enjoyed the various thoughts shared on the inflection of various dialects. When I speak in tongues when spirit-inspired....I am not sure what known human language dialects these tones may be related to. It should be an interesting research. My fathers native language is Samoan but he never taught us it growing up beyond a few basic words of common use. I imagine polynesian languages must have a beautiful flow to them when used in singing - I recall Hawaiin love songs are very beautiful. I should probably learn Samoan - never too late I guess. I know there are alot of vowels in the language.

Anyways,.....I dont think the older languages are 'dead' if they are employed with spirit, intent and the element of sacredness and mystery.....in ones engagement with the Eternal. I can only imagine all the infinitely sacred and most holy sounds that may resonate thru the organ of ones soul in his worship of the Supernal.


paul

[Magdalenbrother]

A great reply. Five Polynesian black pearls on the way!

Most Latin liturgy monasteries are located in Southern France. St Madeleine du Barroux is the ideal place to experience the pre-Vatican II liturgy. You can also pay a visit to Fontgombault, one of the oldest Benedictine Romanesque abbeys in Europe. Their liturgies are just gorgeous.

The Orthodox alas celebrate in the vernacular everywhere except in Greece and Russia. Some of them would even like to adopt the modern Western "liturgy". They must be crazy.

[David Hayward]

Magdalenbrother, I found this quote from the Epistles. Not that I need Paul's support on this matter, but he expresses the matter nicely.

1 Corinthians 14: 13-15 For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.

a) Paul recommends lucidity and intent.
b) I and others need lucidity and intent, and find that words not understood are irritating babble that is not devotional, not worshipful, not prayer.
c) If I am to be mere spectator passively imbibing pleasantly uplifting sounds, I can do that at home listening to music; or if I want only intellectual stimulation I can stay at home and read a book : one attends a church for other reasons.
d) There is no binary opposition between the intellect and the spirit; it is not either/or; which is just as well, for some need something which combines both and neglects neither.
e) If you really want to attend a Latin Mass, they are not banned but, so to speak, licensed; I expect you will be able to find one in your area to listen to.

We are not all the same. Celebrate diversity.

David

[Magdalenbrother]

Magdalenbrother, I found this quote from the Epistles. Not that I need Paul's support on this matter, but he expresses the matter nicely.

I too have found a quote from the Epistles. You will find it below.

1 Corinthians 14: 13-15 For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.

a) Paul recommends lucidity and intent.

This is not incompatible with Latin. I understand Church Latin perfectly. As for intent, I will write a post on "emotionalism and prayer" soon in which I will address this point in full. Let me just say now that "intent" is ego-centered and powered : "I feel that my prayer is sincere, oh how gratifying! Surely God will listen to me! "

Note that people who pray the Rosary recite it mechanically to occupy their lips and superficial mind, while their deeper mind, their "nous", quietly focuses on the presence of God. They don't try to mean everything they say. That would kill them.

Lucidity should be understood rightly. It is quiet attention, without any tension or mental content. In fact, spiritual lucidity is a form of deep rest. St Benedict recommends singing the psalms with attention to the words. That doesn't mean that he wants the monks to mean each single word. What he wants to avoid is absent-mindedness or preoccupation with wordly matters during the Holy Office.

b) I and others need lucidity and intent, and find that words not understood are irritating babble that is not devotional, not worshipful, not prayer.

I find vernacular liturgies irritating babble that is not worshipful, not devotional. Am I mentally challenged? Besides, Latin can be learnt. In the past people understood most of the prayers. They had missals.

Don't you say "Amen" and "Alleluyah"? Do you find these words "irritating undevotional babble"?

c) If I am to be mere spectator passively imbibing pleasantly uplifting sounds, I can do that at home listening to music; or if I want only intellectual stimulation I can stay at home and read a book : one attends a church for other reasons.

In prayer, it is God who acts, not you. He is in control, not you. "He must grow while 'I' must diminish", should be the motto of all true worshippers. Worshippers must become "females". Taoists speak of the "spirit of the valley", which is completely receptive. Catholics point to Mary as the perfect worshipper "pneumati kai a-letheiai".
One goes to Mass to become the body of Christ, to become the voice of the Spouse who says 'Maranatha'. In liturgy there are no individuals any more. This why personal intentions are a hindrance.

Forget yourself, surrender to the Spirit. It will lead you beyond your petty per-sona (per-sona/ prosopon, mask of Greek and Roman actors, social construct) who doesn't know how to pray to the Spiritual Man within, the new creature in the image of the Son.

Paul, whom you love to quote, said it: YOU don't know how to pray. And what did he say after that?

Ineffable sounds...abba...! Are you still in control? Is your will still active?

No sir.

We are all the Spouse and he is the Bridegroom. Celebrate spiritual passivity!

d) There is no binary opposition between the intellect and the spirit; it is not either/or; which is just as well, for some need something which combines both and neglects neither.

Have you any experience of the "spirit"? I'm not speaking of the spirit as a vague, abstract entity (this is unfortunately what the word "spirit" means in English, see how our modern languages cheat us!). I'm speaking of the Hebrew ruah, Greek pneuma, Latin spiritus.

Methinks there are very few Christians nowadays who know the reality of pneuma/spiritus. Pneuma is beyond the ego. It is also an energy which pervades the whole body and is sometimes perceived as radiant light (transfiguration). If pneuma is alive, it directs the "nous"/"intellectus" (again no readily available equivalent in English). Without pneuma, the nous becomes obscured by sensual stimuli. It then leads an autonomous, illusory life of its own. This is why Paul recommends renewing our "nous".

I don't want to elaborate on this lest I should be accused of being a Gnostic. I simply want to point out that you are assuming that you already know what Paul is talking about when he uses words like "spirit" and "mind", whereas the original words may point to realities that are very diffferent from the definitions of these words in a modern English dictionary. I said it: many theological concepts of the Church have no equivalents in our grossly materialistic modern languages. Ho can you teach the truth in such conditions?

e) If you really want to attend a Latin Mass, they are not banned but, so to speak, licensed; I expect you will be able to find one in your area to listen to.

Why should I really want to attend a Latin Mass? You speak as if I were demanding some kind of aristocratic privilege! I have a perfect right as a baptized Roman Catholic to the whole treasure of religious knowledge and art of the Church. This right has been grossly violated by innovators.

What a shame that the age-old tradition of the church, fruit of so many centuries of inspired work by the Spirit, has become "licensed" as you say! Suspect. "Not banned"= tolerated for a few excentrics.

We are not all the same. Celebrate diversity.

I wish you had said "not all liturgies are the same". That would have been truer. I love diversity in quality. In the good old times, the liturgy in London was different from the liturgy in Salisbury, but both were in Latin and Gregorian, but with local inflexions. The quality was always high. People felt the numinous. Now they are entertained.

It seems to me that a "licensed" diversity, grudgingly conceded if one really wants it, is not that welcome or loved. Modernists have been awfully intolerant of so-called traditionalists while claiming to be the most enlightened voices in this debate. Wolves in sheep's clothes...

Don't let us pretend that this is a minor difference. Liturgy and language, gestures and rituals are questions that arouse very strong passions in people. Both parties in this debate wish they could shut up and eliminate the other because they believe so passionately that they are right.

It's unfortunate that liturgical reforms are not conducted slowly and democratically.

David
Be blessed.

[David Hayward]

If you really want to attend a Latin Mass, they are not banned but, so to speak, licensed; I expect you will be able to find one in your area to listen to.


Magdalenbrother, sorry about that dry comment. It was written with your religion icon in mind, which when I first looked declared "Pagan" and now, I see, declares "Shinto"; and being misleading, it misled.

Your quote is noted : Romans 8:26-27 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.

David

[Magdalenbrother]

Thank you for your thoughtful remark, David. I hope you saw my other thread on Cor 14, also on this board. I think your original quote is in fact an argument for my camp, so to speak.

I'm a baptized Roman Catholic but since my own "theology" has long been totally unorthodox from a Catholic point of view, I've decided to label myself "Shinto" for lack of a more suitable denomination. Besides, I love TWEB's Shinto icon: the gate of heaven!

I'm attached to the Latin liturgy for esthetic and religious reasons, and because I've often been laughed at and criticized for my views on this subject by "modernists", I get easily all worked up when I talk about it.

Peace to you.

[shunyadragon]

Thank you for your thoughtful remark, David. I hope you saw my other thread on Cor 14, also on this board. I think your original quote is in fact an argument for my camp, so to speak.

I'm a baptized Roman Catholic but since my own "theology" has long been totally unorthodox from a Catholic point of view, I've decided to label myself "Shinto" for lack of a more suitable denomination. Besides, I love TWEB's Shinto icon: the gate of heaven!

I'm attached to the Latin liturgy for esthetic and religious reasons, and because I've often been laughed at and criticized for my views on this subject by "modernists", I get easily all worked up when I talk about it.

Peace to you.
Coming from a half Irish Roman Catholic family, and growing up with the Latin Mass I have some understanding of the the emotional attachment to the traditional Mass. I took Latin in High School along with French and Spanish. The main purpose of the Latin class was to understand the Mass, but from my experience very few people ever did.

Attachments to things in the past are just that nothing more. The gurus you cited that you respected say the same thing.

[Magdalenbrother]

It is wonderful to praise the Absolute with words that mean nothing such as:

OM MANI PADME HUM

If oldness were a reason for discarding things, then you should be the first to throw away Babeelah since he is long dead.