"Aequum . . " eh? - not sure if my Latin is up to this discussion, but has anyone thought to compare "Vere dignum et justum est, aequum et salutare . ." which was usually translated with a little more strength than " . . truly meet and right, availing to salvation and oh-ok-if-you-really-want-to".
More constructively, perhaps, I could share with you my recent realisation that, since I was of the very last to learn "the Latin" and do the National Service (two experiences of a somewhat similar nature, albeit totally unrelated) anyone only slightly younger than me will not know the Gregorian at all - and that includes by far the majority of the folks in our current congregation; my rather blinkered assumption that every time I try to slip in a little Latin will have the silent majority rejoicing actually means just that - the majority remain silent.
Exit, duly chastened.
Sacramentum Caritatis
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
-
contrabordun
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 4:20 pm
I think that's probably an overstatement. I was born 10 years after National Service ended, making me 30 years too young to have done it, but plainsong ordinaries continued in the parish I grew up in until 1980 or so.
This might have been fairly unusual, but can't possibly have been unique (can it?)
Children's capacities to absorb language being as they are, I'd have thought there would be quite a few people this side of 40 who would have a fair recognition of it.
But there is always a danger in generalising from personal experience.
This might have been fairly unusual, but can't possibly have been unique (can it?)
Children's capacities to absorb language being as they are, I'd have thought there would be quite a few people this side of 40 who would have a fair recognition of it.
But there is always a danger in generalising from personal experience.
-
nazard
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:08 am
- Parish / Diocese: Clifton
- Location: Muddiest Somerset
Quaerutor,
You are a bit pessimistic. Latin was still being taught regularly in schools up to the late seventies, and gregorian chant until at least the early seventies, so you don't have to be all that old to have some knowledge. Have you read "Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis?" Its a good read from beginning to end.
You are a bit pessimistic. Latin was still being taught regularly in schools up to the late seventies, and gregorian chant until at least the early seventies, so you don't have to be all that old to have some knowledge. Have you read "Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis?" Its a good read from beginning to end.
nazard wrote:Have you read "Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis?" Its a good read from beginning to end.
I have; it's a ripping yarn (even if my Cassell's New Latin Dictionary was working overtime). I am not going to read Book 7 (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) until it comes out in Latin!
musicus - moderator, Liturgy Matters
blog
blog
-
Tsume Tsuyu
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 9:40 am
- Location: UK
Our, ahem, 'folk group' has been singing a plainchant Mass setting during Lent. I am a forty-something who doesn't remember any Latin from the Mass of my youth. I did learn it for a year at school before dropping it because I hated it! And so I approached the idea of singing Latin plainchant for a season with trepidation, partly because I wasn't sure I'd enjoy it, and partly because I wondered how it would be received in our parish. We do sing bits and bobs of plainchant, but we've never tried a Mass setting in Latin, over a season.
I'm pleased to report that I love it! The young people in our choir have taken to it too, without question or complaint, and there has been some positive feedback from parishioners also. However, it's very recently been brought to my attention that some of the older members of our congregation have been complaining bitterly that they thought they'd heard the last of it in the 60s, that they don't understand it and don't want it inflicted upon them. I know this isn't everyone, but it's a sobering thought that it's the older members of our congregation (who, according to many of you ought to be familiar with it) who claim to neither like it nor understand it!
The idea that Latin might be the universal language of the church is one that worries me too. The other day, our PP regaled me with a story about a Mass that was being celebrated in Japan. Because of the international attendance at this Mass, it was decided that it would be said in Latin. The Japanese celebrants had to have the words written out in syllabic script and I'm told that the pronunciation was so poor that, even if you were fluent in Latin, you wouldn't have know what they were saying but for the fact that it was Mass, so everyone who was there knew anyway! It seems to me that it's the Mass itself that's the universal 'language' rather than whatever language is used for the celebration. But if we have to have a universal language, then I'd have said English is probably more universally known than any other language, in the Catholic Church at any rate (though I wait to be corrected by someone who knows better!).
I'm pleased to report that I love it! The young people in our choir have taken to it too, without question or complaint, and there has been some positive feedback from parishioners also. However, it's very recently been brought to my attention that some of the older members of our congregation have been complaining bitterly that they thought they'd heard the last of it in the 60s, that they don't understand it and don't want it inflicted upon them. I know this isn't everyone, but it's a sobering thought that it's the older members of our congregation (who, according to many of you ought to be familiar with it) who claim to neither like it nor understand it!
The idea that Latin might be the universal language of the church is one that worries me too. The other day, our PP regaled me with a story about a Mass that was being celebrated in Japan. Because of the international attendance at this Mass, it was decided that it would be said in Latin. The Japanese celebrants had to have the words written out in syllabic script and I'm told that the pronunciation was so poor that, even if you were fluent in Latin, you wouldn't have know what they were saying but for the fact that it was Mass, so everyone who was there knew anyway! It seems to me that it's the Mass itself that's the universal 'language' rather than whatever language is used for the celebration. But if we have to have a universal language, then I'd have said English is probably more universally known than any other language, in the Catholic Church at any rate (though I wait to be corrected by someone who knows better!).
TT
Perhaps it's the way plainsong was taught to young papists in the UK in the 1950s and 60s. I'm a convert who discovered it as a young man in the early 1980s, and have loved it ever since. And no, I'm not the sort of convert who wants the return of the Tridentine mass in every parish. I just know a good thing when I hear it.
-
Gwyn
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:42 pm
- Parish / Diocese: Archdiocese of Cardiff
- Location: Abertillery, South Wales UK
Ian said:
Same goes for me.Perhaps it's the way plainsong was taught to young papists in the UK in the 1950s and 60s. I'm a convert who discovered it as a young man in the early 1980s, and have loved it ever since. And no, I'm not the sort of convert who wants the return of the Tridentine mass in every parish. I just know a good thing when I hear it.
I think there are two issues here: execution, and judgement over time.
I generally avoid masses with music these days, because so much of what's offered is badly done. As a result, most of my singing is done away from home, in places where the trouble is taken to do things well (silence is golden, so what replaces it had better be good). From the anecdotal evidence of my elders, this has long been a problem.
However, while there are similarities between different generations' reactions against the liturgical music of their youth, there's also a difference, which can be obscured by the execution problem. It's a crying shame if people have been alienated from plainsong and polyphony, because the passage of time has validated their spiritual and liturgical worth, to the extent that the Church has judged them a significant element of its tradition. The music of Inwood, Farrell et al isn't in the same category. Which is not to say it's good or bad, but merely to observe we haven't had time to assess its lasting worth. The implication of this is that it is sensible to encourage what the Church suggests: give an important place to plainsong (and where resources allow to polyphony), and give time and effort to the development of new music, within the insights of the tradition. And to come back to the first issue, both of these require active encouragement, rigorous training and a constant will to do it well, if we are to move forward constructively.
I generally avoid masses with music these days, because so much of what's offered is badly done. As a result, most of my singing is done away from home, in places where the trouble is taken to do things well (silence is golden, so what replaces it had better be good). From the anecdotal evidence of my elders, this has long been a problem.
However, while there are similarities between different generations' reactions against the liturgical music of their youth, there's also a difference, which can be obscured by the execution problem. It's a crying shame if people have been alienated from plainsong and polyphony, because the passage of time has validated their spiritual and liturgical worth, to the extent that the Church has judged them a significant element of its tradition. The music of Inwood, Farrell et al isn't in the same category. Which is not to say it's good or bad, but merely to observe we haven't had time to assess its lasting worth. The implication of this is that it is sensible to encourage what the Church suggests: give an important place to plainsong (and where resources allow to polyphony), and give time and effort to the development of new music, within the insights of the tradition. And to come back to the first issue, both of these require active encouragement, rigorous training and a constant will to do it well, if we are to move forward constructively.