Out of the mouths of babes ...

[alan29]

Anyone for woad?

[Calum Cille]

You say that Catholics don't need Latin just as others say that we don't need art or music

Not at all. Liturgy wouldn't work without art and music. It does work without Latin.

It also works without a cross hanging above the altar. Your utilitarian logic insists that such crosses be removed as, like Latin, they won't be needed otherwise. Your logic insists that anything conceived as unnecessary cultural frippery be removed as it won't be needed otherwise. Your utilitarian logic insists that you don't need carvings on a font because they won't be needed otherwise. You have no right to deprive Catholics of their culture, it is not mere frippery.

Such logic as you are using insists that we shouldn't learn melodies for the prayers at mass as we don't know them will never need them:

Roughly correct as we rarely sing prayers. We do, however, need melodies for acclamations.

No we don't need them, acclamations can be spoken, as at football matches. Music is not an absolute necessity in the Latin rite, as per low masses.

Such logic insists that priests shouldn't wear cassocks because they'll never use them, already possessing their own clothes belonging to their own culture.

Well, why do they need cassocks? And do you know a priest who wears one?

Nick, you really are living in a little, little world if you don't.

This is just an argument designed to reduce culture to an absolute minimum.

Quite the opposite. How does using a foreign language help in celebrating the liturgy? It's difficult enough in English!

So removing a cultural component does the opposite - expands culture?

[Calum Cille]

I have no interest in depriving anyone of anything.
In fact I am of the pre-Vat II generation, so Latin is a part of my background. Heritage? I suppose it is in the same sense and to the same degree that Fountains Abbey or the Corn Laws are.

Do explain how it is the same. I don't believe these function anymore because they are not usable. The Latin of the mass is usable and does function.

[Nick Baty]

It also works without a cross hanging above the altar.

But is preferable with. This is a symbol of our redemption.

Your utilitarian logic insists that such crosses be removed as, like Latin, they won't be needed otherwise. Your logic insists that anything conceived as unnecessary cultural frippery be removed as it won't be needed otherwise. Your utilitarian logic insists that you don't need carvings on a font because they won't be needed otherwise. You have no right to deprive Catholics of their culture, it is not mere frippery.

Quite the opposite of what I said. But I don't do logic. It tends to be taught in the sort of schools where they do Latin.

acclamations can be spoken, as at football matches.

Could be – but the English are a quiet people. We don't shout in church. That's one of the reasons we sing.

Music is not an absolute necessity in the Latin rite, as per low masses.

Yes it is. There are parts of the Mass which are always sung. And I wasn't aware low Mass still existed. But am happy to be corrected.

Such logic insists that priests shouldn't wear cassocks because they'll never use them, already possessing their own clothes belonging to their own culture.

Well, why do they need cassocks? And do you know a priest who wears one?

Nick, you really are living in a little, little world if you don't.

Not at all. I just don't happen to have any mates who wear them!

This is just an argument designed to reduce culture to an absolute minimum.

Quite the opposite. How does using a foreign language help in celebrating the liturgy? It's difficult enough in English![/quote]

So removing a cultural component does the opposite - expands culture?

How can the use of words we don't understand add to culture? We're all now struggling with "consubstantial" to mention just one word from the Creed. Change the rest into words we don't know and we may as well give up!

[Nick Baty]

The Latin of the mass is usable and does function.

No it isn't. It is not our language. We don't speak it. Some might learn to translate it but why use a language we don't speak fluently for the most important part of our week?

[alan29]

I have no interest in depriving anyone of anything.
In fact I am of the pre-Vat II generation, so Latin is a part of my background. Heritage? I suppose it is in the same sense and to the same degree that Fountains Abbey or the Corn Laws are.

Do explain how it is the same. I don't believe these function anymore because they are not usable. The Latin of the mass is usable and does function.

They are a part of my cultural history, but of little current importance to me personally. Likewise Latin.

[Calum Cille]

It also works without a cross hanging above the altar.

But is preferable with. This is a symbol of our redemption.

But, like Latin, it is not necessary. Latin can be seen as a symbol of our unity through space and time to the Holy See.

Your utilitarian logic insists that such crosses be removed as, like Latin, they won't be needed otherwise. Your logic insists that anything conceived as unnecessary cultural frippery be removed as it won't be needed otherwise. Your utilitarian logic insists that you don't need carvings on a font because they won't be needed otherwise. You have no right to deprive Catholics of their culture, it is not mere frippery.

Quite the opposite of what I said. But I don't do logic. It tends to be taught in the sort of schools where they do Latin.

What is quite the opposite of what you said?

acclamations can be spoken, as at football matches.

Could be – but the English are a quiet people. We don't shout in church. That's one of the reasons we sing.

Then be English and mumble it. Singing, like Latin, is unnecessary.

Music is not an absolute necessity in the Latin rite, as per low masses.

Yes it is. There are parts of the Mass which are always sung. And I wasn't aware low Mass still existed. But am happy to be corrected.

The fact that certain parts are always sung in your area doesn't mean they have to be sung, just as Latin doesn't have to be used.

Such logic insists that priests shouldn't wear cassocks because they'll never use them, already possessing their own clothes belonging to their own culture.

Well, why do they need cassocks? And do you know a priest who wears one?

Nick, you really are living in a little, little world if you don't.

Not at all. I just don't happen to have any mates who wear them!

That's exactly what I meant - the little, little world of you and your mates.

This is just an argument designed to reduce culture to an absolute minimum.

Quite the opposite. How does using a foreign language help in celebrating the liturgy? It's difficult enough in English!

So removing a cultural component does the opposite - expands culture?

How can the use of words we don't understand add to culture? We're all now struggling with "consubstantial" to mention just one word from the Creed. Change the rest into words we don't know and we may as well give up!

This is the same argument used against Gaelic speakers - this language is incomprehensible to English speakers and therefore should not be learned, nor should learning it be promoted. The use of Latin adds linguistically to culture, just as the use of flowers at mass (instead of having no flowers) adds horticulturally to culture. Seems obvious. Perhaps I should explain the meaning of the word culture to you.

[Calum Cille]

I have no interest in depriving anyone of anything.
In fact I am of the pre-Vat II generation, so Latin is a part of my background. Heritage? I suppose it is in the same sense and to the same degree that Fountains Abbey or the Corn Laws are.

Do explain how it is the same. I don't believe these function anymore because they are not usable. The Latin of the mass is usable and does function.

They are a part of my cultural history, but of little current importance to me personally. Likewise Latin.

That doesn't mean you have to right to argue against its cultural importance for others. It is culturally important. It is very culturally important. You might just as well say that Latin is not culturally important to Catholics as say that the Manx and Cornish languages are not culturally important to the Manx or the Cornish.

[Calum Cille]

The Latin of the mass is usable and does function.

No it isn't. It is not our language. We don't speak it. Some might learn to translate it but why use a language we don't speak fluently for the most important part of our week?

If it is, as you maintain, not usable and does not function, how come so many people use it at mass and manage to follow a whole mass in Latin even though they don't speak the language?

[JW]

CC, the Council / Church / Pope do not envisage Latin completely dying out, but don't you think learning Latin should be the province of specialists today? It may be a bit extreme to introduce it back into the school curriculum at Waterloo Road! What would you suggest be removed from their curriculum to accommodate it? And how would you teach it? I'm not sure how it is taught today but I was brought up on Ceasar's Gallic Wars which, I suggest, isn't really suitable material for children in the way that it glorifies war and conquest as if they are morally the right thing to do. By all means a Latin club after school might hit the spot, but I doubt if there would be much support. Learning Latin in seminaries, convents and monasteries, now that's another matter, though, again I suspect enthusiam could be muted.

....but then I live a little life as I don't know any priests who still wear a cassock either (there might be one but he wasn't wearing it when he came over to conduct my son's wedding a few months ago and I didn't ask him). I was chatting inconsequentially to the Bishop of Rochester this morning though - he wasn't wearing a cassock either, or a collar, just jumper and casual trousers.

[Nick Baty]

But, like Latin, it is not necessary. Latin is a symbol of our unity through space and time to the Holy See.

Whereas the cross is a symbol of our Redeemer.

What is quite the opposite of what you said?

Your arguments that my logic leads to iconoclasm. What I actually said was that I couldn't imagine liturgy without art and music.

Singing, like Latin, is unnecessary.

Seems to me to be something humans have always done at times of joy and sorrow. It is a most natural function.

The fact that certain parts are always sung in your area doesn't mean they have to be sung, just as Latin doesn't have to be used.

Alleluia. Eucharistic Acclamations. These, by their nature as well as at the instruction of our bishops, are always sung.

That's exactly what I meant - the little, little world of you and your mates.

So because I don't happen to know any priests who wear cassocks I somehow live in a little world? That is an argument I don't understand. Were I to walk down the street now and bump into three clergymen in cassocks would my world suddenly expand? I'm not sure it would.

This is the same argument used against Gaelic speakers - this language is incomprehensible to English speakers and therefore should not be learned, nor should learning it be promoted.

It is not the same argument at all. Gaelic speakers learn Gaelic to speak to each other. It is a living language. Latin is used for... well, outside academia, I have no idea why!

[Nick Baty]

If it is, as you maintain, not usable and does not function, how come so many people use it at mass and manage to follow a whole mass in Latin even though they don't speak the language?

If they don't speak the language then I don't understand how they do. If they wish to so do, then why shouldn't you. What I don't understand is your argument that everyone should be doing it. Why on earth should I spend many years learning a language to celebrate a liturgy which is available in English? (I think we've come full circle!)

[alan29]

CC, to repeat.I have no interest in depriving anyone of anything. I am speaking solely of and for myself.
I am in total sympathy for those who fight for the integrity and respect for their own languages. That is why I am so incensed at the barbaric, unidiomatic and ugly translation that is being foisted on us at this time. It might, in time even drive me back to the Latin.

[Calum Cille]

CC, the Council / Church / Pope do not envisage Latin completely dying out, but don't you think learning Latin should be the province of specialists today? It may be a bit extreme to introduce it back into the school curriculum at Waterloo Road! What would you suggest be removed from their curriculum to accommodate it? And how would you teach it?

You do it the same way you teach it in English - as part of the religious education component. You teach it the way you teach any language. You say it and get the scholars to repeat it back to you and hand it out on a piece of paper. For goodness sake, it they can learn "expecto patronum" and "peskipiksi pesternomi", they can learn Latin.

By all means a Latin club after school might hit the spot, but I doubt if there would be much support. Learning Latin in seminaries, convents and monasteries, now that's another matter, though, again I suspect enthusiam could be muted.

Again, "learning Latin", as if all would be expected to hold a fluent conversation in the language, is not quite the same thing as learning the Latin mass.

....but then I live a little life as I don't know any priests who still wear a cassock either (there might be one but he wasn't wearing it when he came over to conduct my son's wedding a few months ago and I didn't ask him). I was chatting inconsequentially to the Bishop of Rochester this morning though - he wasn't wearing a cassock either, or a collar, just jumper and casual trousers.

You are both so parochial! The Catholic world isn't limited to your little part of the earth, you know. Are you both telling me they don't wear them at mass?

[Nick Baty]

Again, "learning Latin", as if all would be expected to hold a fluent conversation in the language, is not quite the same thing as learning the Latin mass.

If you can't speak it fluently, how on earth could one understand all those eucharistic prayers, prefaces and collects?

Are you both telling me they don't wear them at mass?

Nope. We're a tad quirky up here. They wear albs and chasubles.