Why Is Latin So Attractive To So Many?

[stlmom]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1321949' date='Jul 10 2007, 12:16 AM']+

I think part of it is just the tradition, too. It's cool (and that's an understatement), to be praying the exact same words that monks and nuns have been praying the last two thousand years. Now that, is unity![/quote]


I agree that praying in Latin might give some a sense of unity with those who have gone before us. Actually I found it quite moving to attend a Maronite Catholic Eucharist where many of the prayers were said in Aramaic. Now THAT is really connecting with the early Church!

[abercius24]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1321917' date='Jul 10 2007, 12:06 AM']Agreed except that I prefer the existence of two uses or forms of the Roman Rite (as currently exists thanks to the moto proprio). An ideal situation in my mind would be reverent and liturgically correct [i]forma ordinaria[/i] liturgies (which means some Latin per Sacrosanctum Concilium) as the norm with [i]forma extraordinaria[/i] masses on special days or even most Sundays. It would be something like the high Mass/low Mass scenario.
I think this way people would be able to have the mostly vernacular Liturgies and the accessibility of the [i]forma ordinaria[/i] and sort of be weaned into the [i]forma extraordinaria[/i] for more solemn occassions. It seems like the participation criticisms apply mostly to the old low Mass anyway so that problem would be solved (even though I love my low Masses).

What do you think?[/quote]

I agree. There should definitely be a distinction between high and low mass. That is something that has been clearly lost with the move to the vernacular. In a sense, it has made things a little too static.

[quote name='stlmom' post='1322215' date='Jul 10 2007, 08:49 AM']I agree that praying in Latin might give some a sense of unity with those who have gone before us. Actually I found it quite moving to attend a Maronite Catholic Eucharist where many of the prayers were said in Aramaic. Now THAT is really connecting with the early Church![/quote]

Amen to that! The language Jesus and the Apostles spoke! Wow!

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='mortify' post='1317917' date='Jul 8 2007, 12:32 AM']People mistakenly believe the difference between the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo is a matter of language, as if the Novus Ordo missal is simply and English translation of the Tridentine missal (it's not.) Compare the two yourself, and consider the differences:

[url="http://www.latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm"]http://www.latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm[/url]

Now Latin is liturgically significant for (at least) three reasons. First of all, it has been used in the liturgy for over 1500 years by Popes, Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and lay faithful, and thus deserves our respect. Secondly, it adds to the ancient and mysterious character of the liturgy. Thirdly, being that it is no longer used, and can't be claimed by any particular race or culture, it adds to our catholicity (that is, universal character of the Church).

Those are my two cents on why we care about Latin.[/quote]

I could have typed up a long post on why I love Latin in the liturgy, and why it is [i]necessary[/i], and not to be excluded from the liturgy. But I couldn't have said it better than mortify here

Edited July 10, 2007 by Totus Tuus

[son_of_angels]

I have a different way of looking at this topic. You see, as a Classics student, I CAN usually pick up the meaning of the Latin without a Missal, but for me that DOES NOT MATTER, because it is not that the Mass is in Latin, but what the Mass is in Latin.

The other day, for example, I was in Mass. Now, our apostolate is in a fairly modern looking church, but one that has kept very close touch with traditional architecture. It is a fairly large sanctuary, and yet it does not feel large, but directs the eye upwards to a long set of beams that seem to hover above the crucifix. There is a large, light-flooded area near the top, and on each side of the altar are two round windows, the only two in the sanctuary, and there are not any in the nave. As I was sitting in Mass, during the Gradual, meditating on the Gospel, I heard the strains of a Gradual that has been repeated and repeated since perhaps the 9th century. I could imagine, though this is a bit anachronistic, Augustine taking his place to deliver his homilies, or St. Benedict gathering his first group of monks, all of them unknowing that for a thousand years no one could rival them for their impact.

In Latin, these words are preserved whole, integral. The ancientness of them is sensible and palpable. Translate them, however, and there is no going back. Translate them, and you have permanently destroyed the beauty of the Vulgate, and the wonder of those ancient antiphons. And, lest anyone point out that we don't have to use chant. then let that person remember that there were good reasons, and those reasons are eternal why Chant should remain in the liturgy.

Consider this whole business of Jewish-Christian dialogue. Actually, that is little my concern; consider instead the Jewish roots of Catholicism. The Gradual, a long, ornate chant from the Psalms is meant to echo the cry of the Jewish people for their Messiah, hence it's long plaintive nature. It is the Psalm of a people in oppression, but it also sounds much like Jewish chant remains.

My point is, well, there isn't really any specific point. Love Beauty! and what is most Beautiful is at the same time the most True; and what is most True is at the same what is most Mighty. Praise God for such an inestimable gift of the saints who left for us a treasure in the Latin language. We should learn it, teach it to our children, value it as our special inheritance in the words of the Saints.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1321917' date='Jul 10 2007, 12:06 AM']Agreed except that I prefer the existence of two uses or forms of the Roman Rite (as currently exists thanks to the moto proprio). An ideal situation in my mind would be reverent and liturgically correct [i]forma ordinaria[/i] liturgies (which means some Latin per Sacrosanctum Concilium) as the norm with [i]forma extraordinaria[/i] masses on special days or even most Sundays. It would be something like the high Mass/low Mass scenario.[/quote]


I know you weren't asking me, but honestly I am with you on this. To me, that is the [i]ideal[/i] situation today. But of course, this is just opinion. The vibes I'm getting from Rome seem to be indicating a similar opinion, but if they make a more conclusive statement on the matter I don't mind shifting my opinion

Edited July 12, 2007 by Totus Tuus

[Chiquitunga]

[quote name='sismaria' post='1319130' date='Jul 8 2007, 08:15 PM']Thank you all for your thoughts. It seems whatever brings us to God is most important and blessed as long as it is in obedience and holiness. ...but the most important thing is that at every Mass we offer ourselves completely with Jesus to the Father so that He may fill us with His Holy Spirit and transform us into His image and so that we may bring the whole world to know and love and serve Him in this life and be happy with Him in heaven.[/quote]
I totally agree!

I do greatly love the Tridentine Mass though (Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite), and the prayers offered in Latin with Gregorian Chant. Another thing not mentioned here, that I particularly love about it is receiving Holy Communion at the altar rail. There are a couple places in my area with the ordinary form of Mass that have this as an option also though. I really love going up for Holy Communion in this way. It definitely seems to flow a lot better, and its reverence really reinforces the Church's faith in the great mystery of the Eucharist.

On a side note, my favorite book on the subject is definitely St. Peter Julian Eymard's, [i]Holy Communion[/i], Vol. II of the [url="http://christtheking.stores.yahoo.net/eylivo16.html"][b]Eymard Library[/b][/url].

Edited July 16, 2007 by Margaret Clare

[Maggyie]

Everybody has these wonderful deep reasons for liking Latin... I have to say that my very shallow reason for loving it is that it is... ahem... [i]prettier[/i], or at least it seems like it to my personal tastes

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1320672' date='Jul 9 2007, 01:18 PM']+

According to the Pope's head exorcist, "The Devil fears Latin". That's reason enough for me.[/quote]

can i quote you on that? if so, that's reason enough for me too.

for me, it's not so much the latin language, but rather the reverence of the liturgy and the people who attend. it could be in any language really, but ideally i would prefer it to be in my vernacular so i can undertand better. as it is now, my brain is translating from latin-to-english and english-to-latin during mass so i think it's kind of inefficient, albeit "prettier".

also, even though i only have a semester of latin under my belt, there's a certain mystery when hearing unknown words, especially when chanted or sung. it's almost angelic and holy.

[Chiquitunga]

On the live EWTN Q&A Session that just aired, there was a question on what Mother Angelica thinks of the Motu Proprio. Here's what was posted on another forum. Did any of you see it?

An older man and resident of Hanceville, Alabama approached the microphone and asked:

[quote]"What does Mother Angelica think about the Tridentine Mass, approved by Pope Benedict?"

Sr. Mary Catherine answered:

"Well the day she heard about it, she was really excited. If she could have jumped, she would have been jumping for joy. Mother even before her stroke, I remember her commenting that, that would come back, because it's more contemplative. It's a beautiful Mass. The mass we have now is beautiful, but you know, I heard this exorcist-priest tell me once that the devil hates Latin and that's why they always exorcise in Latin. And if the devil hates it, we need to go back to it."[/quote]

[Chiquitunga]

[quote]Latin was the perfect language for the Mass. It's the language of the Church, which allows us to pray a verbal prayer without distraction. See, the purpose of the Mass is to pray and to be associated with the crucifixion and with that glorious banquet that we partake of in Holy Communion. He is there. But so much is spoiled in the vernacular.

During the Latin Mass you had the missal if you wanted to follow it in English. It was almost mystical. It gave you an awareness of heaven, of the awesome humility of God who manifests Himself in the guise of bread and wine. The love that He had for us. His desire to remain with us, is simply awesome. You could concentrate on that love, because you weren't distracted by your own language. You could go anywhere in the world and you always knew what was going on. It was contemplative because as the Mass was going on you could close your eyes and visualize what really happened. You could feel it. You could look to the east and realize that God had come and was really present. The way it is today with the priest facing the people, it's something between the people and the priest. Too often it's just some kind of get-together, and Jesus is all but forgotten.[/quote]

From [url="http://www.raymondarroyo.com/motherslittlebook.html"]Mother Angelica's Little Book of Life Lessons and Everyday Spirituality[/url] (pg. 206)

[Chiquitunga]

The above quote is from Raymond Arroyo's site [url="http://www.raymondarroyo.com/motherslittlebook_excerpt.html#latinmass"]here.[/url]

I really like what she said. Also, I was worried for a time that I was doing the wrong thing at Mass by not following along with a missal. Some people have told me I ought to pray with a missal. But we are free to follow along with a missal or not. I really like St. Peter Julian Eymard's methods of hearing Mass in his book, [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=70530&st=0&p=1331245&#entry1331245"][b][i]Holy Communion[/i][/b][/url].