That was my understanding of your statement that the faithful's ability to make the appropriate responses in Latin represented appropriate participation in the Mass. There was no mention in your statement of them needing to understand what they were responding to, or what their responses actually meant. Conversely, I interpret both SC and the GIRM to mean that conscious participation requires a level of understanding of what is being said and what they are saying.

I could have misinterpreted your statement and am willing to leave off if I did.

I don't believe so. If I interpreted your earlier response properly that understanding was not important, merely saying the words, then it is a relatively logical extension of that idea. E.g., if we do not need to understand the Mass in order to have properly participated in the prayers, then why would we need to understand in order to pray the hours or to practice lectio divina?

Again, if I misunderstood your earlier statement then my point is not a proper response.



Either way, the whole point of this thread was that I was thrilled to see some beautiful chant in a language that I can understand and that I wish it was more widespread instead of the rubbish which all to often permeates Catholicism in the United States under the guise of sacred music. If chant like this was more widespread I believe more would be open to incorporating it into things such as the Mass, the Hours, readings of Scripture, etc. I believe that doing so would be a massive step in a good direction.

I agree that maintenance of Latin is important for the tradition of the Church and I also believe that the EF of the Mass should be made available to those among the faithful who desire it. I have zero problem with that at all.

You are free to disagree with any of the above if you like, and I will gladly let you have the last word should you desire it. This thread somehow morphed into what I was hoping would be a nice discussion about something I felt was a very positive thing into another thing entirely.

Peace of Christ,

Excuse me if I misunderstand your objections to Latin and participation. My response here directed towards these two intertwined issues in the context of Holy Mass. If my objections do not apply to you then they certainly apply to other posters, I apologize in advance of any confusion on my part.


The problem here to assume that literal understanding word for word what is being said equates to full active participation during Holy Mass. This is simple a modern phenomenon brought about by the hijacking of the liturgical movement.

To put it another way, for 1500 years the Western Church has been using Latin in the Mass - and no, the earliest incidents were not vernacular but elevated vernacular which proceeds into the archaic and eventually into what we know as "liturgical language."

So one must try to argue against all of those saints, doctors, Popes who for centuries did not reject its usage or question it.

In fact the greatest Mystics of the Church were born, raised, and died on Latin Masses – people who achieved ultimate intimacy with God. They didn't complain about “not understanding” things at Mass.

Secondly, I go Traditional Latin Mass and I know no Latin but I participate more than I ever did at an English Mass. Why? Because a literal understanding of what is being said does not equate into 100% full activate participation.

In fact I would argue that a liturgical language enhances participation through a number of factors such as..

1. The sense of the sacred.

2. A proper and fitting expression for the primary function of Mass in the worship of God through the principle focus of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The salvific act of Christ (His Incarnation, etc.) is a mystery – God is a mystery – a liturgical language expresses this mystery.

3. It brings you out of the ordinary into the otherworldiness; not using the “common marketplace language” in your worship of God.

4. The curving of pride by subjecting yourself and depending more on the priest and the fact that “my language” (i.e. English in our case) is not being used but the Church's language.

5. A liturgical language like Latin symbolically represents the unchangingness of God and reflects how doctrine and belief develop in the Church. It is suprahistorical as it connects us with the past; hence it indirectly helps to curve modern tendencies to throw out other Traditional practices and by extension may help in guarding against doctrinal error.

6. And of course uniformity aspects with Catholics across the world coupled with the protection of mistranslations.

All of this equates into communicating Catholic doctrine better, hence the faith is better safeguarded and reverence increases.

I think its great that they are using English chant insofar as it is better than what you usually hear - it's a step in the right direction - but I won't stand by as objections of the use of Latin in Holy Mass are leveled for the same reasons that neo-modernists in the 1940s-1970s used in their efforts to hijack the liturgical movement and force 100% vernacular liturgies down our throats.

Um, no.
I personally know people in choir who know the pronunciations but don't know Latin, they have admitted this to me. One of our gentlemen who sings and sings solo sometimes has admitted that actually learning the Latin is more difficult.

Heck, people sitting next to me who sing in Latin and pray in Latin can pronounce it but don't know it.
(the key is they know what is being said in the prayer, not that they know Latin.. if that makes sense).

For the record, it is extraordinarily easy to pronounce Latin, even though I don't know what most of the words mean ... now, when we sang the Rachmaninoff Hail Mary in Russian, that was pretty difficult...

Bagheera is right that GREGORIAN chant is by definition in Latin. There can be chant in English, but it isn't Gregorian, just as it isn't Coptic, or Malakar. And good chant in English demands adaptation to the exigencies of English, which are different than Latin. Chanting the English as one would the Latin just sound awful. So as far as that "dispute" goes it is a matter of semantics. Apparently some people insist on confusing Gregorian chant for chant. For that matter, there are many varietals of Gregorian chant, and not just "old solesmes versus new solesmes". But that is all irrelevant to English chant, which doesn't fit into the styles of Gregorian chant.

Fr. Samuel Weber, OSB is very good at this. He has composed several Masses, and adapted chant to the antiphons of Mass in English....though if he had his way his work would become irrelevant. He would rather just sing the EF all the time. But he works to improve what is common.

As far as Sacrosanctum Concilium goes, I almost wonder why we even bother quoting that document which was in many places derogated from immediately by Paul VI. E.g., if SC were actually implemented this conversation would be moot. Why? Because the Office would be in Latin. See permission for vernacular was already limited for Mass in SC. While the document orders the utter destruction of the Roman office in any of its defining characteristics other than being done by the Roman Church* (far more radical than the change to Mass, both in respect to what was done, and what the Council actually ordered), it orders two things. The "revision of the psalter" which is to say "get rid of that horrid psalter put in by Pius XII" This was only a concern assuming Latin remained the norm. The Bea psalter did not suit Gregorian chant, it was bad and stupidly done. The older, Galican psalter was still allowed, so why order a new revision if Latin was going to be abnormal? BTW, that new revision did happen and the Nova Vulgata is actually far closer to the Galican psalter than Bea's

But what is more,

In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly. The vernacular version, however, must be one that is drawn up according to the provision of Art. 36.

This, like article 36, is a dead letter.

*The sole exception is article 93 which orders the hymns, disfigured in the 17th century by neo-classicists, be restored. But sadly, while those changes were undone, the act of restoration included its own changes, such as the excising of any mention of fasting,. abstinence, etc.

You mean Church Slavonic?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPJ3wxBxjAo

It's not Russian, but might be considered as Old Russian.

The problem is that those Soviets tried to suppress all religious songs including Hail Mary's. Rachmaninov presented in 1915 - only two years before the Russian Revolution.