Posted on 06/26/2014 2:47:24 AM PDT by markomalley
It’s been roughly 500 years since Martin Luther introduced the language of the people to the Mass – the Divine Liturgy of the Church. 500 years since the historic language of the Western Church was purged from the worship of God’s people. As a student of history, I understand why Luther thought this was necessary. Indeed, there is goodness in hearing and understanding the Liturgy in one’s native tongue. But Luther’s experiment with language should end. It’s time to restore Latin to the Mass of the Western Church. It’s time to reintroduce the language of the Church to her people.
For those bristling at such a suggestion, I offer the following observations:
1) The Lutheran Reformers did not seek to abolish the Mass. Our confessions, contained in the Book of Concord, make this abundantly clear. These are the same confessions that every ordained Lutheran pastor swear to uphold and affirm. In other words, the Lutheran Church is a Liturgical Church and our worship is properly called the Mass.
2) Concerning matters of the faith, there was widespread ignorance among laity AND clergy during the time of the Reformation (Cf. Luther penning his Small and Large Catechisms). This, coupled with a literacy rate of ~20% (which radically changed with the introduction of the printing press), meant that the vast majority of those attending Mass had little knowledge of what was being said (by priest or people). Again, it’s no wonder Luther thought the vernacular was important.
3) While the Lutheran Church affirms sola scriptura, it does not reject Tradition or the importance of ritual. Catholicity is not adiaphara (optional/indifferent), especially with respect to worship. And nothing affirms our catholicity like the Mass. It is, I believe, THE defining characteristic of what Lutherans confess.
But why ditch the vernacular in our worship and relearn – reintroduce – and re-embrace Latin in the Mass? What possible benefits can come from such a change? I’m glad you’re curious…
1) Despite that the fact that the Lutheran Confessions affirm the Mass, many Lutheran churches today reject it altogether and embrace a worship style that is more akin to what one would find in a non-denominational church. Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief) is absolutely true and those who reject the Mass or think they should arrogantly rewrite it based on what they think their congregation wants/needs, I believe, reject the very substance of Lutheranism. Can you imagine a contemporary Latin Mass? Neither can I. They are mutually exclusive, which is why the use of Latin in our Mass will help restore our catholicity in matters of worship, and affirm what our Confessions already do.
2) Our clergy and our people are very educated on matters of faith these days, much more than those prior to the Reformation. The Holy Scriptures, the Book of Concord, the writings of the church fathers, etc., are almost all in our native tongue. But with the expulsion of Latin, there is no longer a common language of the Church catholic. I know, very few clergy and even less laymen know Latin. But what a powerful educational tool the Church could be if it took it upon herself to educate her people in this language. As we relearn this language, some of our hymns, the assigned readings, and the sermon, could remain in the vernacular, along with a translation of the Latin in the hymnal or worship folder. But once again Christians could have a language that unites every congregation around the world – regardless of time or location.
3) Finally, re-embracing Latin in our Mass will further solidify the Lutheran Church as a communion that embraces the catholicity of the Christian faith. This embrace, I believe, will allow us to refocus our efforts on ending our schism with Rome. Sadly, most Lutherans have no desire for reconciliation with those in fellowship with the Bishop of Rome. However, this runs contrary to the intent of the Reformation and to the spirit of the Augsburg Confession. But how can our communions be reunited if our worship is so radically different? Let’s embrace the language from whence we came and in it, find a new platform for dialogue and reconciliation.
It’s time. For the sake of the church and our faith – restore Latin to the Mass.
Soli Deo Gloria
Then why Latin? Koine Greek is a dead language too, and it was the original language of the New Testament. Same with Ancient Hebrew, just that it was the original language of the Old Testament.
Note that the two statements I made, that you combined, were in separate paragraphs. Paragraphs denoting changes in subject.
No logical reading of my post would conclude that English becoming a primary language is a negative. Nor would one conclude that I was stating that reading Mass worldwide in English would be a net positive.
I simply stated that Latin was originally the default, due to its universal nature, but that is no longer the case, and in fact, English more closely fits the bill, IF universal language is what you are looking for.
Our family hears Latin and sings Latin and prays Latin and reads Latin every week. One friend of ours actually taught it it to his toddlers.Linguistics is my hobby—I’ve dabbled a bit in dead languages. And sure, no one speaks Latin as a first language anymore, but it is nowhere even close to dead.
There's an internet radio station out if (IIRC) Scandinavia that streams news in Latin. Can't dig up a pointer just at the moment...
I missed this little straw-man jewel the first time.
So yes, of course, it totally follows that if I don't have a problem with the use of vernacular language in Mass, that I think everyone should be as ignorant as possible.
I knew I couldn't hide that connection from you. A truly masterful piece of deductive reasoning and causal application you have going on there. I'm just shocked that you couldn't also conclude that I'm a secret Obama supporter and card carrying Marxist.
People who cannot carry on a conversation in English don't get smarter when they attempt it in Latin. Nunc tace.
All Church documents in the last 1500-plus years are in Latin.
Sure she can tell you what it means. If I give her a text she’s never seen before, can she translate it perfectly, no, but she can give you the gist of it.
Do you have a firm grasp of how a liturgy works? There are texts we hear over and over every Mass...but there are variable texts as well (readings, introits etc.) So over the course of a year you are exposed to the language in a variety of different ways. It’s not mere rote memorization of a phrase over and over.
Anyway, why be insistent on some perfect understanding of the text as if the liturgy is eviscerated without it? No *English* speaker has that. Does everyone fully understand what “consubstantial” really means, or “proceeds from the Father and the Son”? Does everyone know what “tares” are or “spelt”?
Every Catholic is (or should be anyway) from a young age catechized with what is going on at every point in the Mass. I could walk into a Chinese Mass, tell you exactly what is going on, and participate in it without understanding a single word. It’s no harder than watching a soccer game with a Spanish announcer.
Would you rather "this is my body, this is my blood" to be all buttoned down and sewn up in a nice rationalistic package that you can fit in your pocket? The central sacramental mystery of Christianity reduced to a dopey little farce of juice and a cracker that we break out once in a while to "memorialize" God incarnate--as if that makes any sense?
Good luck with all that.
If you don't see mystery in the Christian liturgy, you ain't looking hard enough.
My point being that the Latin therefore does not offer her a better understanding of the text than English would.
Do you have a firm grasp of how a liturgy works? There are texts we hear over and over every Mass...but there are variable texts as well (readings, introits etc.) So over the course of a year you are exposed to the language in a variety of different ways. It’s not mere rote memorization of a phrase over and over.
I'm a lecter and a Eucharistic minister, so let's say I've dabbled a bit. Much of the liturgy is repetitive, in as much as the nouns and verbs go. I think its wonderful that your wife goes to the effort and enjoys the Latin, I'm just not sharing the benefit.
Anyway, why be insistent on some perfect understanding of the text as if the liturgy is eviscerated without it? No *English* speaker has that. Does everyone fully understand what “consubstantial” really means, or “proceeds from the Father and the Son”? Does everyone know what “tares” are or “spelt”?
I wasn't being insistent on perfect clarity, I was just pointing out that Latin will not provide more clarity than the vernacular for more than 99% of people.
Every Catholic is (or should be anyway) from a young age catechized with what is going on at every point in the Mass. I could walk into a Chinese Mass, tell you exactly what is going on, and participate in it without understanding a single word. It’s no harder than watching a soccer game with a Spanish announcer.
Which is why I don't think Latin (or any other common language) is necessary for you to take part in a foreign language Mass. In any event, I imagine the pronunciation of Latin by Chinese or Welsh natives would be as equally incomprehensible as anything else they said.
So?
The oldest Church document is in Ancient Hebrew, and it’s been around a lot longer than 1500 years.
And post #14 demonstrated that was not the case. Greek was originally the "default" language for the Christian world. Latin was adapted universally centuries later, and only by the western world (eastern Christians continued to use Greek)
At Pentecost the apostles went out and spoke to people in their local tongues.
Latin mass every where came after that.
It is "by the educated class throughout Christiandom", which is the reference I was responding to. Obviously the "average" lay Catholic from a non-English speaking country wouldn't understand English.
>> for better or worse its meaning is in a constant state of flux. <<
So was Latin during the 1500 years it was use as the "default" language. Vulgar Latin that was used and understood by the masses is quite different from Classical Latin that was used by the educated and aristocrats writing down religious texts.
There is no equivalent "Classical English" used by the educated and aristocrats for any purpose. Indeed, is seems increasingly that our "educated" and "aristocrat" class drive the changes in meaning of the English language, and do so for nefarious purposes.
Gonna don your "gay apparel" this Yuletide? No? Didn't think so ... and it wasn't us common folk that poisoned the word "gay".
Not sure I really have a dog in this Latin fight, but I do sympathize with the Latin-lovers.
Semantic much?
"Latin was originally the default..." has a different meaning than than "Latin was the original default...". As you didn't catch it, the first time you pick something is the original time you picked it. It matters not how many other items you picked before it. E.g. "I originally picked the blue sweater, because it was the warmest." does not indicate that the blue sweater was my first pick, but rather that my first reason for picking it was warmth. Same with Latin. When it was originally picked, it was due to its universal nature.
You are picking around the edges of this thread and coming up with some very weak to nonexistent gotchas. If you would like to take part in the thread, the discussion revolves around whether Latin Mass is beneficial or not.
Really? Are you Catholic? I honestly thought you were coming at this from a low-church Protestant tack, my profound apologies for being condescending.
Here's the thing. There's never been a time in the Church without a sacred language. There's also never been a time without the vernacular. And very often (as you correctly pointed out), a vernacular soon becomes a sacred language, as Latin or Cranmer's English.
So I think the most sensible policy is to wholeheartedly encourage both. Keep the Latin (as Vatican II stated), but at the same time make provision for the vernacular where and when it serves the Church. You'll not find me siding with the opponents of Sts. Cyril and Methodius for translating the liturgy into Slavonic. However, I do think that aggressively ripping out the Latin as we've done the last 40 years has been a catastrophic mistake and led to a huge breakdown in Catholic identity.
Yes, indeed I'm Catholic. I entered the Church as an adult. I found no insult in anything you said.
I see no harm in conducting Latin Mass for those who prefer it. Why not? I would even be open to making a point of doing it once a year in place of English. I would enjoy the historical element. I just reject the necessity of it.
Our Deacons perform a basic "how/why its done" Mass once a year that I think is very valuable for people who are prone to fall into recitation of the liturgy, etc. without thought.
As for keeping Latin as a common base language in the Church, from which all vernacular translations are then made, I see great value in it. The dead aspect of Latin makes it very useful as such a medium and certainly helps to prevent constant arguments.
Plumrodimus stated:
“Although the ELCA isn’t a Lutheran Church and the LCMS rejected the Joint Declaration with Rome. This thread is about the LCMS. “
Thanks for the info; I did not understand the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America was not Lutheran. I also missed in the article anything about churches in Missouri; rather, the author refers to a Lutheran communion.
Thanks again for your insight.
Again, no that is not the topic. There is no question about whether the Latin Mass can be beneficial. The old Latin language tridentine mass is occasionally used in the modern Catholic Church, and certainly many people prefer it over the "regular" English language mass and are happy it is available to the public. If the argument was whether it was "beneficial", the topic would revolve around removing Tridentine masses from usage entirely.
Rather, the topic was whether we should "restore Latin to the Mass" and make it the standard and default form of worship in the Catholic Church.
My opinion is we should not.
Nope. Not the subject of the article, nor the conversation I was having in my posts. The article is referring to the Lutheran church (small c catholics). The posts you jumped in on, were my points on why Latin was not a superior choice. But if you want to make that a point of discussion it is certainly closely related to the topic and much more valid than trying to find cracks in semantics.
My opinion is we should not.
Noted.
I'm a lecter ...An often overlooked benefit of studying Latin is improved spelling skills ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.