Out of the mouths of babes ...

[alan29]

CC, I take you aren't as languages teacher then?
I am just trying to gauge the relevance of Latin to the teenagers I used to teach RE to in inner city Liverpool. Somehow I think there were more vitally important things to teach them.

[Calum Cille]

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.

You are displaying a personal interest in not giving Latin its due place in the liturgy. You are arguing a point in a case. In this conversation, you are taking part in an argument about the value of Latin in the mass for anybody, including you. Every voice added to such an argument lends weight and thus support to that argument and de facto operates on behalf of some side of that argument. If you say,

Heritage? I suppose it is in the same sense and to the same degree that Fountains Abbey or the Corn Laws are.

you are making a point in an argument for depriving Catholics of Latin at mass on the grounds that it is unusable and not functioning. I fail to see how this does not display a personal interest in not giving Latin its due place in the liturgy, which would result in the depriving of Latin in the liturgy for those who would wish it present, to whatever degree.

[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.

You are displaying a personal interest in not giving Latin its due place in the liturgy. You are arguing a point in a case. In this conversation, you are taking part in an argument about the value of Latin in the mass for anybody, including you. Every voice added to such an argument lends weight and thus support to that argument and de facto operates on behalf of some side of that argument. If you say,

Heritage? I suppose it is in the same sense and to the same degree that Fountains Abbey or the Corn Laws are.

you are making a point in an argument for depriving Catholics of Latin at mass on the grounds that it is unusable and not functioning. I fail to see how this does not display a personal interest in not giving Latin its due place in the liturgy, which would result in the depriving of Latin in the liturgy for those who would wish it present, to whatever degree.

Its called having a say, Callum. It's allowed, you know.
My wife would be astonished that my views hold such sway - maybe you could have a word with her on my behalf.

[Nick Baty]

You are displaying a personal interest in not giving Latin its due place in the liturgy.

Sounds more like he is arguing against your original point that we should all know the Mass in Latin.

[Calum Cille]

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.

Yes, Nick, you've just said that. My point is that neither are necessary. Your logic to remove one is the same logic to remove the other.

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.

Your logic does lead to iconoclasm. It says that an additional language is not necessary for the function of the mass and should thus be stripped from the mass. That logic applies equally well to art and music which are equally not necessary for the function of the mass. Therefore you are biased for art and music and biased against Latin. I think you should do some listening to what your deeper reasons are for not wanting Latin at mass that would cause you to make such an inequitable proposal.

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.

As is using a standard language for reserved functions, eg, Coptic language at a Coptic mass, Aramaic at a Syrian mass and so on. The naturalness is demonstrated by the de facto evidence that human beings do it.

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.

Latin doesn't have to be used in order for the liturgy to operate, and likewise, a mass in which there is no singing (during the week for example), is equally valid, therefore we can drop the singing. If you take the argument that we should sing these because the bishops ask us to and because they have the authority to, shouldn't we be using Latin at mass because Vatican II tells us to and has the authority to?

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.

No, it means that you live in a little, little, little world because when I make an argument that your logic insists that priests should NOT wear cassocks because they'll never use them otherwise, already possessing their own clothes belonging to their own culture, you reply that you don't personally know any priests that weak cassocks, as if i) they never wore them at all, even at mass, and ii) that there were no priests who wore cassocks anywhere in the world.

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!

Of course it is the same argument. By saying "How can the use of words we don't understand add to culture?" you are effectively suggesting that the Latin of the mass should not be learned nor used at mass because people don't speak it or understand it. The same argument is made about Gaelic - people don't speak it or understand it, so it shouldn't be learned and adds nothing.

[Calum Cille]

But, Dear CC, you're suggesting we learn a language we don't know and will never need.

As I've said, you're talking about it as if, by suggesting that we learn the mass in Latin that I'm suggesting that people need to learn how to hold a fluent conversation in Latin, which I have not suggested.

If your choir sings something in Latin, then add the translation to the service sheet.

Quite. It's that easy. Likewise, if your congregation sings something in Latin, then they already know the translation.

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?

You read the translation, Nick. And how on earth do all those choirs manage to sing all that Palestrina when they don't speak it fluently?

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.

And no cassock underneath the alb?

You are displaying a personal interest in not giving Latin its due place in the liturgy.

Sounds more like he is arguing against your original point that we should all know the Mass in Latin.

So much for your "I don't do logic" rubbish. If he displays a personal interest in us not all knowing the mass in Latin, he must surely also be displaying a personal interest in not giving it its place in the liturgy. Not the meaning of the English word, "in".

[Calum Cille]

CC, I take you aren't as languages teacher then?

Could you please explain how you came to that conclusion?

I am just trying to gauge the relevance of Latin to the teenagers I used to teach RE to in inner city Liverpool. Somehow I think there were more vitally important things to teach them.

The same arguments are used against the teaching of Gaelic. The utilitarian approach to culture is a blight on humanity.

Its called having a say, Callum. It's allowed, you know.
My wife would be astonished that my views hold such sway - maybe you could have a word with her on my behalf.

Your views do hold sway in parishes up and down the country where Latin has no place in the mass.

[nazard]

...
If my understanding is correct, as no christian scripture was reavealed in latin there is no need to understand it. Mass is difficult enough to understand in english.

Whatever languages christian scripture was revealed in, it was written down in Hebrew and Greek (possibly aramaic for the last parts of the Old Testament like Maccabees, I don't know) and none of it in Latin. Latin is, however, the language of many doctors of the church, of most papal and dicastery documents, of church councils, of the Roman Missal, the breviary, the Kyriale and Graduale and of most catholic music. Its preservation was called for by the most recent general council of the church. I suppose you are theoretically correct, there is no actual need to understand Latin, but it will help you. Otherwise you can either remain ignorant of their content, or else rely on translations. You have personal experience of the quality of the translations we are given. Do you really want to rely on them?

...I don't do logic.

I think I may remember for a long time that you wrote that.

...I wasn't aware low Mass still existed. But am happy to be corrected.

Just as well, as I went to one on Tuesday. Or perhaps its me (alright, I) who doesn't exist.

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

Yes - several. In many circumstances it is the appropriate dress for a priest.

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!

Yes - change the rest into words we don't know and it will be totally incomprehensible. However, that is not an argument for using no unfamiliar words. It would just become impossible to write anything of even moderate complexity if we took that idea on board. Speakers and writers use uncommon words precisely in order to convey meaning. If you do not understand a word, then follow the common practice of our civilisation and look it up.

... It is not our language.

Oh, I thought you were a catholic.

We don't speak it.

Very careless of you. You claim to have been around since 1963, so you must have had the time.

Some might learn to translate it but why use a language we don't speak fluently for the most important part of our week?

In order to emphasise the importance of that part of the week?

Latin is a symbol of our unity through space and time to the Holy See.

Qui aures habet audiende, audiet.

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

Your "always" again. You really do need to get about a bit more.

Gaelic speakers learn Gaelic to speak to each other. It is a living language.

That may be true of Gaelic speakers, but many learners of Welsh do so in order to become more Welsh. (Not me, I'm English. I learned to speak Welsh because I was living in a Welsh speaking town.) You could learn Latin in order to become more catholic. You might want to become more catholic because being catholic is an aid to becoming more christian.

Latin is used for... well, outside academia, I have no idea why!

Saying mass, writing church documents, singing the office, etc.

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!)

Why spend many years when a few would do?

Availability of liturgy in English is limited, which is where we were a couple of pages back.

Nick, you say that you never travel to places where foreign languages are spoken, and as I remember the language of Penarlag is saesneg, so you may be right. However, do you not have any members of your congregation who can hardly string an english sentence together? Even out here in the styx there are several, and at harvest time it swells significantly. Wouldn't it be friendly to have a language in which we all celebrate the sacred mysteries together?

[Nick Baty]

Yes, Nick, you've just said that. My point is that neither are necessary. Your logic to remove one is the same logic to remove the other.

The crucifix is a symbol which speaks to many of us regardless of language. Latin speaks only to those who understand it.

Your logic does lead to iconoclasm. It says that an additional language is not necessary for the function of the mass and should thus be stripped from the mass. That logic applies equally well to art and music which are equally not necessary for the function of the mass.

I said that I could not imagine Mass without art and music. While I do not, and never have, objected to your desire for Mass in Latin, I maintain that it is a stumbling block for those of us who do not speak it. No, I am not biased against Latin. I am biased against the view that we should all be able to do it.

eg, Coptic language at a Coptic mass, Aramaic at a Syrian mass and so on. The naturalness is demonstrated by the de facto evidence that human beings do it.

Ergo, Latin at a Latin Mass. And English at an English Mass.

Latin doesn't have to be used in order for the liturgy to operate, and likewise, a mass in which there is no singing (during the week for example), is equally valid, therefore we can drop the singing.

Of course it is equally valid. Noone has suggested it isn't. By the way, why drop the singing during the week?

you reply that you don't personally know any priests that weak cassocks, as if i) they never wore them at all, even at mass, and ii) that there were no priests who wore cassocks anywhere in the world.

i/a) I do not know any priests who wear a cassock
i/b)At Mass a priest wears alb and stole, sometimes (but not always) a chasuble.
ii)Yes, I do know that in some parts of the world, priests wear cassocks. I do not live in those parts of the world. That is why I do not know any priests who wear cassocks.

The same argument is made about Gaelic - people don't speak it or understand it, so it shouldn't be learned and adds nothing.

Gaelic speakers speak Gaelic in order to speak to other Gaelic speakers. This is not the same argument. Our worshipping community does not speak Latin. I'm sure God understands Latin but he has never – as far as I know – objected to us speaking to him in our own language.

[alan29]

CC, I take you aren't as languages teacher then?

Could you please explain how you came to that conclusion?
From your description of the process of language teaching.

I am just trying to gauge the relevance of Latin to the teenagers I used to teach RE to in inner city Liverpool. Somehow I think there were more vitally important things to teach them.

The same arguments are used against the teaching of Gaelic. The utilitarian approach to culture is a blight on humanity.
There are actually some things that are more important and vital than teaching Latin in RE- in terms of safe-keeping, living upright lives, reaching moral decisions etc.

Its called having a say, Callum. It's allowed, you know.
My wife would be astonished that my views hold such sway - maybe you could have a word with her on my behalf.

Your views do hold sway in parishes up and down the country where Latin has no place in the mass.

That is because they have value in themselves, not because I express them.
Sorry, I have no idea of how to do those split quote thingies. Anyway, there would seem to be no meeting of minds here at all, and little point in continuing the exchanges.

[Calum Cille]

...I don't do logic.

I think I may remember for a long time that you wrote that.

...I wasn't aware low Mass still existed. But am happy to be corrected.

Just as well, as I went to one on Tuesday. Or perhaps its me (alright, I) who doesn't exist.

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

Nick, "why do they need" is utilitarianism. I don't need to sing a song today. That cannot be a valid reason to forbid me to sing a song today.

Gaelic speakers learn Gaelic to speak to each other. It is a living language.

You might want to become more catholic because being catholic is an aid to becoming more christian.

I think there is some meaning in the assertion that it is more Catholic to know some Latin, wear a cross and hum a psalm while in the shop and all these other things I "don't need to do".

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!)

You don't have to learn a whole language. You just have to learn the mass in Latin, just like choirs (do not) spend many years learning a language in order to sing Palestrina.

Wouldn't it be friendly to have a language in which we all celebrate the sacred mysteries together?

A people-friendly language, in fact, for all those who know the Latin mass well but who have poor English.

We can be too demotic about this, dumbing down to the lowest common denominator in such a way that makes us unfit for the lowest common denominator in a non-demotic situation. It is the cry of the petulant teenager who says, "what do I need to learn this for" who ends up saying years later that he didn't understand the value of learning and knowledge when he was a petulant teenager. "What do we need religion for?" asks the uncomprehending unbeliever. It's a matter of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, as they say. Latin has cultural value.

[Nick Baty]

Nazard, let me stress again, I have nothing against Latin in the liturgy. And for those who wish to so celebrate who could object. What I don't understand is the argument that everyone should be able to do this. Some of us are not linguists.

Just as well, as I went to one [Low Mass] on Tuesday. Or perhaps its me (alright, I) who doesn't exist.

Well I said I was happy to be corrected. Might I be right in thinking that Low Mass exists in the EF? It certainly doesn't in the OF. At least, it's not in any of the missals I have.

Yes - several. In many circumstances it is the appropriate dress for a priest./

And that's great. But I was arguing with CC who didn't believe that I don't know any who do! And I don't!

However, that is not an argument for using no unfamiliar words.

Agreed. But why a language we don't speak so that we have to first translate them and then try to understand what they mean.

Oh, I thought you were a catholic.

I notice you use a small c. Yes, I am 100% paid up.

You claim to have been around since 1963, so you must have had the time.

1962 to be precise. A superb year which also produced Speedy Gonzales by Pat Boon, Gravy by Dee Dee Sharp and The Stripper by David Rose. But why would I want to spend the time learning a language I don't need? Apart from which, I don't remember ever having the opportunity.

You could learn Latin in order to become more catholic.

Nope. Really can't see the connection there.

Availability of liturgy in English is limited, which is where we were a couple of pages back.

No it isn't – there isn't a church in driving distance of here which doesn't have liturgy in English.

Wouldn't it be friendly to have a language in which we all celebrate the sacred mysteries together?

I do understand there are many with a desire for Mass in Latin. But as I said at the top, what I don't understand is the argument that everyone should be able to do this.

[Nick Baty]

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

Nick, "why do they need" is utilitarianism. I don't need to sing a song today. That cannot be a valid reason to forbid me to sing a song today.

Dear CC, 'twas you who asked the question:

Such logic insists that priests shouldn't wear cassocks because they'll never use

I simply asked if you knew any priests who did wear them. It appears you do. And I don't and therefore, according to your good self, I live in a small world.

[Calum Cille]

Nazard, let me stress again, I have nothing against Latin in the liturgy. And for those who wish to so celebrate who could object.

No, indeed you have nothing against Latin in the liturgy, you just raise your voice against having it in the liturgy with a litany of reasons not to. Who are you trying to kid?

What I don't understand is the argument that everyone should be able to do this. Some of us are not linguists.

OK, today we're going to learn how to say "Agnus Dei". Say, "Ah..." There are people with Downs syndrome who are bilingual, Nick, what's your excuse?

But I was arguing with CC who didn't believe that I don't know any who do!

I'd like to see the evidence for that claim.

But why a language we don't speak so that we have to first translate them and then try to understand what they mean.

For one, because it's the original language. That's like asking why Russians should bother reading Shakespeare in the original language. You will actually experience and learn something interesting. Shock, horror. 'But I don't need to learn anything interesting'!

You could learn Latin in order to become more catholic.

Nope. Really can't see the connection there.

Now there's a surprise.

I do understand there are many with a desire for Mass in Latin. But as I said at the top, what I don't understand is the argument that everyone should be able to do this.

The argument is perfectly clear. See above. You sound like Richard Dawkins talking to Alister McGrath, saying something along the lines of, "I just don't understand how an intelligent, educated person like you can find this thinking sensible."

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

Nick, "why do they need" is utilitarianism. I don't need to sing a song today. That cannot be a valid reason to forbid me to sing a song today.

Dear CC, 'twas you who asked the question:

No, you did. I said, "Such logic insists that priests shouldn't wear cassocks because they'll never use them otherwise, already possessing their own clothes belonging to their own culture."

I simply asked if you knew any priests who did wear them.

You didn't simply ask. Your question had an intended implication for this discussion.

It appears you do. And I don't and therefore, according to your good self, I live in a small world.

No, you therefore live in a small world either because you present yourself as somehow unaware of the phenomenon of priests wearing cassocks as if that doesn't happen anywhere. You have tried to use that lack of recognition in a vain attempt to invalidate my point, which stands, whether or not priests wear cassocks.

[Nick Baty]

No, indeed you have nothing against Latin in the liturgy, you just raise your voice against having it in the liturgy with a litany of reasons not to. Who are you trying to kid?

Noone. Honestly, no objection – why would I? Just objecting to your proposition that we should all be able to.

There are people with Downs syndrome who are bilingual, Nick, what's your excuse?

Don't have one. Don't need one. Just prefer to sing it in English.

For one, because it's the original language.

No. Don't think it is. I think several languages were in use before Latin. In fact, wasn't Latin used because it was the language of those promoting the then new faith? So it was, in fact, in the vernacular. (But haven't I also read that on here in the last 24 hours?)

No, you did. I said, "Such logic insists that priests shouldn't wear cassocks because they'll never use them otherwise, already possessing their own clothes belonging to their own culture."

Exactly. 'Twas you who raised the cassocks!

No, you therefore live in a small world either because you present yourself as somehow unaware of the phenomenon of priests wearing cassocks as if that doesn't happen anywhere.

Nope! I have simply said that I do not know any priests who wear cassocks. I also said, in an earlier post, that, yes, I am aware that they are worn in some parts of the world. I do not live in those parts of the world and that is probably why I do not know any priests who wear them!

By the way, this is a welcome diversion from the huge mound of college admin which is currently on my desk!