Ratzinger, Liturgy and England

[mcb]

Hardly a complete answer, but would it be reasonable to suggest that Latin is useful because it has stopped evolving in the way that other languages do. Thus the meanings of Latin words have much more strict interpretation. If you say something in Latin, it's meanings are much more specific than if you say something in other languages, especially modern English, which can be easily misinterpreted. Latin is much more rigorous in this respect, right?

No, this is bogus, I think. Latin hasn't stopped evolving: it's still spoken all over Europe and it's called Italian, French, Spanish, Romanian, Catalan and the like. These, and the Latin they 'evolved' from are normal languages. So there's nothing structural or technical about Latin that makes it different from other languages. Using Latin isn't using a different kind of language, it's using language in a different way - pretending you can freeze the course of historical development and that this somehow confers some magical precision on the meanings of the words. You could of course do the same thing with English - pick a historical variety, say the language of the late 16th century, and claim that this is somehow more precise and 'rigorous' than later (or for that matter earlier) variants.

In a real 'evolving' language words have a meaning which is guaranteed by the consensus of the living communities which use them. Using a fixed historical variant of a language takes away this organic underpinning of the meaning of the words, and allows you instead to invest words with your own meanings. There's no community of native speakers to argue with you, so the words can mean whatever you want them to. This, I think, is the appeal of Latin for those who see it as a more effective vehicle than a living language for articulating truths, if they believe that truth is something received passively rather than experienced and lived. In this view truth can be pinned down, if you capture it in language that doesn't change. But this is illusory: no form of words captures the truths of our faith in a way that articulates their full meaning.

Humpty Dumpty attempts the same control over the meaning of words in Through the Looking Glass:

There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

In the context of liturgical and theological language, the logical destination of preferring fossilised Latin words to living vernacular ones is a faith that cannot be expressed in ordinary language, only in technical terms. Can faith be living if it can only be expressed in immutable formulas in a foreign language?

M.

[Merseysider]

Oh *beep*! I'm lost!

[Hare]

I am not involved in either, but does anyone know if there is similar debate over Latin v. vernacular in medical or horticultural circles?

[Merseysider]

Is there really a debate about the use of Latin in the liturgy?
Some like it, some don't.
Personally don't understand why anyone would want to pray in a foreign (and dead) language but very open to the fact that they might.
Is there really any debate?

[presbyter]

No, this is bogus, I think. Latin hasn't stopped evolving

And neither has culture


I confess to being one of those consulted about the draft ICEL translation of the so-called "new" Missal. In my opinion, the literal translation of the Roman Canon as proposed does not resonate happily in the ears of those of a northern European culture. The manner of supplication, to my mind, sounds excessively sentimental, obsequious and even sycophantic and therefore insincere or even silly - BUT - I can also see how those of even a contemporary Mediterranean culture would have little problem with such expression for it is indeed a part of their culture. Go to Rome and hear (with often flamboyant gesture) Italians entreat, beg, beseech, implore, plead, supplicate ..... etc among themselves (even over a small discount on a bus ticket). I just raise the question - is the root of the perceived linguistic problems with (translations of ) the Roman Rite simply that it is just that: "Roman" - and the manner of Roman (ancient or modern) cultural expression does not lend itself easily to contemporary good English as spoken by the English....... and extending that globally, to what extent are the squabbling "liturgical" factions in the Church in the United States being driven not by "the Faith" (even if they say they are) but by subtle, concealed and even subconscious desires to preserve certain cultures (which may have evolved or be suffering a dismal desuetude)? If we celebrate in "mono-cultural" English - will there not inevitably be factions arising in the English-speaking Church? There is no such entity as an English mono-culture.

And so, is this debate over whether or not to sing a bit of Latin really being driven by a desire for best pastoral practice in the celebration of the Roman Rite - or by, perhaps, nostalgia for a cultural Golden Age of Catholicism in this country that never really was?

(N.B. Please do not associate diversity of liturgical, stylistic preference necessarily with doctrinal liberal/conservative debates. The most "right wing" Catholics I know doctrinally are liturgically "happy-clappy" so-called charismatics and not members of the L.M.S.)

One may hear "When everything was in Latin, Mass was the same all over the world". Well yes it was an in essence it still is, no matter what language we celebrate in. But then no it wasn't..... and still isn't. Latin "High Mass" at the Birmingham Oratory today is not Latin "High Mass" at the Cathedral in Valletta today. The ceremonial, the language and perhaps even the music might be the same but the visitor to either would perceive a different cultural "spin" in each celebration. The universality of Latin never extinguished local culture in celebration (and even within Mass the local cultural expression of popular piety) ....... and a universal English for the English-speaking Church will not extinguish it either. Now how do we learn better to inculturate the liturgy in vernacular celebration, remaining faithful to the the Church's instructions? (And perhaps we could bring to mind here that a characteristic of the modern western world's society/culture is fragmentation - whereas the Church seeks unity. How do we dare to be counter-cultural?) (Who's going to start that thread? Who's going to apply it to music? Ha! Will anyone dare to suggest that Rome's desire for a universal English - to promote unity - will fail to satisfy the global English-speaking Church in its cultural diversity? )

OK - so let's say the choir today is going to sing Frank's "Panis..." or Ett's "Haec Dies" (or even Byrd's) or (if I trawl through a pile of dog-eared, antique Carey editions) Arcadelt's "Ave..."

As a pastoral minister, what purpose does the Director of Music assign to these Latin pieces?

Then...

Say you have - as I have - a faithful bunch of 70+ year-olds who like Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament occasionally and Benediction. Should their singing of "O Salutaris"; "Tantum Ergo" and "Adoremus in aeternum" be supressed and replaced by English versions? You (and I) know that they haven't really got a clue what the Latin means. (Well, they might get "Gloria Patri.... etc", I suppose.)

And then....

In Cardinal Arinze's foreword to the latest CTS edition of the Constitution, he states that it was never the Council's intention for Latin to disappear completely in the Church's celebration - and there's always been that paragraph in GIRM about the desirability of the faithful knowing how to sing some of the parts of the Mass in Latin ..... (The question of how you get the faithful to sing at all is not addressed. Pity!)

Is Rome on a "hiding to nothing" here or might there be a value in rediscovering a little of the so-called "treasury of sacred music" - which, by the way, the content of which is cautiously never defined . After all though, Taizé has shown us all what a bit of Latin can do!

[Gwyn]

Presbyter said:

a faithful bunch of 70+ year-olds who like Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament occasionally and Benediction. Should their singing of "O Salutaris"; "Tantum Ergo" and "Adoremus in aeternum" be supressed and replaced by English versions? You (and I) know that they haven't really got a clue what the Latin means.

Aaaaaaaargh !!!!!

[Merseysider]

If we celebrate in "mono-cultural" English - will there not inevitably be factions arising in the English-speaking Church? There is no such entity as an English mono-culture .... The universality of Latin never extinguished local culture in celebration ..... and a universal English for the English-speaking Church will not extinguish it either.

And UK English is not the same as English spoken in America, Australia etc. The new translation Presbyter mentions is faithful to the Latin – or so I am informed by a linguist – but it simply doesn't flow. Reminded me very much of the 1662 book of Common Prayer.

Am I right in thinking the British bishops asked that the people's parts should remain as they are? I had to return my copy (shouldn't have had it in the first place) so I can't quote it – but I remember thinking that our lot would hate it. Translation might be into English but the language was far from vernacular. I'm not suggesting dumbing down but it seems wrong to give people language which means nothing to them. The present translation has its critics but the words have come to be known and loved over the last 30 years.

[presbyter]

Aaaaaaaargh !!!!!

With respect - hardly an answer to my question. You're not making an inference that these good and holy people can translate the latin they are singing are you? Many are Irish immigrants from poor backgrounds in their childhood. They have never received a latin lesson in their lives and as adults now, they could have severe literacy problems in English. If they came especially from a rural background in Ireland, they may not even have attended primary school all that often in their childhood - apart from those times when sacramental preparation was being undertaken. Parents often called upon their children to help on the farms, rather than attend school. The "thick Mick" image cast upon so many Irish, making them the subject of taunts and low humour, is so unjust and offensive. They are far from "thick". Sadly, they can be uneducated, even in the basic "three Rs".
BUT they are the backbone of this parish and living examples of how the celebration of the liturgy sanctifies life. If "Tantum ergo" in Latin helps them adore and praise Christ present in the Eucharist - and, I suppose, give them a sense of the numinous - fair enough ("a spirit of wonder and awe in his presence"). But I wouldn't dare ask them to suggest what it means in English. Yet if now, for example, I introduce James Quinn's paraphrase/translation of that hymn instead, what might they gain by singing in English but what might they lose? Discuss!

[VML]

The people who grew up with the Latin hymns to honour the Blessed Sacrament know that they are singing reverent, prayerful language that they have learnt from childhood, just as they learnt their mother tongue: buy ear.

They don't have to analise it word for word for it to be valid.
And how many of us sing hymns or say prayers we have learnt by heart and known for decades, knowing what we mean to say, even if some of the words are archaic or a bit heavy or not how we would actually speak normally, but finding the familiar language an easier vehicle for our praying?

V

[Merseysider]

As one who grew up singing those hymns I know exactly what VML means. However, I still cannot think of a single reason for using Latin in the liturgy today – I'm not saying there aren't any, just that I can't think of one. If I tell you "I love you" I do it in my mother tongue. Serge and Jane sang "Je t'aime" which technically means the same – but I'm not sure that's a particularly apposite example.

[Hare]

However, I still cannot think of a single reason for using Latin in the liturgy today – I'm not saying there aren't any, just that I can't think of one.

Here's a reason: GIRM.41 April 2005 edition, 2nd paragraph.

That's why my parish do it.

[musicus]

Hare, could you (or somebody) give us the paragraph please? For the benefit of those without a copy to hand. Thanks.

Musicus

[Hare]

Hare, could you (or somebody) give us the paragraph please? For the benefit of those without a copy to hand. Thanks.

Musicus

"Since the faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is fitting that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in latin especially the Creed and Lord's Prayer, set to the simpler melodies" (cf sacrosanctum Concilium no.54)

[Merseysider]

It would be a tad strange to spend goodness knows how long helping the assembly to learn those two particular items on the off-chance that one of us might win the lottery and end up travelling in a non-English-speaking country. (And rather tedious for those of us who fall foul of the 14 million-to-one odds!)

Strange, too, that SC should suggest the Creed and the Pater Noster rather than those texts (like the Sanctus) which everyone should be singing.

I'm sure Hare has a point, but if I tried to introduce Latin settings of those items our assembly would vote with its feet. And, when asked to explain to them why I'd made such a choice (as I usually am with unpopular stuff) I would still be at a loss to explain to them.

"Sacrosanctum Concilium thinks you should know them in case you ever travel further than Manchester," wouldn't receive much of a positive response.

As I've said before, I'm sure there are many valid reasons for the use of Latin – but noone has yet come managed to convince me.

Latin is deader than the last dodo to be stuffed and served for Christmas lunch. It speaks to those who understand it but as few people (certainly in my part of the world) have a working knowledge of conversational Latin it seems a tad pointless in the liturgy.

I am informed that Latin is still the official language of the judiciary – much good it would do us if the prosecution and defence summed up our cases in words we couldn't understand. We'd all be hanged!

[Benevenio]

I am fortunate to celebrate, albeit annually, with Catholics from many different language groups. Each takes its turn to prepare morning and evening prayer. It is interesting (for me at least) to compare the approaches to the Lord's Prayer. Some go for the 'uniform' approach - we'll all say/sing Pater Noster; others go for the 'united' approach - we'll say it together, each in our own tongue. When my children joined me last summer, who have no knowledge of Pater Noster, they were excluded by the first approach (not given words because everybody knows that) but very much included by the second. They observed the beauty of hearing the prayer's rhythms and sounds in the different languages working together; it needs to be experienced to be believed.

It is not my children's fault that they do know know Pater Noster (you may blame the parents, if you wish!), but as a pastoral liturgist and musician, it is up to me to be aware of the needs of those praying with me at these gatherings. If I wish to use the Latin, then I must ensure that the words (and notes) are provided, and give some explanation as to what we are praying, because not everyone under the age of 45 does recognise where we are, especially in a short Morning Prayer, especially at an hour too early for the braincell to be functioning at full power.

Most of all, there is a humbling, salutary lesson for me every year as I toil once again using my poor linguistic skills to pray in a foreign tongue - God doesn't speak just English (or even Latin), but every language. Even Dutch.