Out of the mouths of babes ...

[Calum Cille]

Because you said, "Are you both telling me they don't wear them [cassocks] at mass?" Now stop making me giggle while I'm sorting out my briefs!

And so Nick's failed attempt to justify cultural intolerance, disinheritance and disenfranchisement ends in banality.

[Nick Baty]

Nope! My original argument was why ask us all to use Latin on a regular basis simply to make life easier for the few who might occasionally attend Mass in a foreign language? The question still stands. There might be many reasons for people to learn Latin, but the foreign travels of the few hardly seems reasonable.

[Calum Cille]

Then why did your attempt at justification of your stance end in banality?

[Calum Cille]

Its called having a say, Callum. It's allowed, you know.

I have never contended that you should not be allowed your say. I still fail to see how you having your say 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.

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.

That is only partly true. Views are known to spread via communication, as with knowledge. When people hold a viewpoint, they can communicate this viewpoint to others (as you have done here) who can perceive it to have value and who can then communicate this viewpoint again to others. These are how views can spread and how they can hold sway. While you express such views here, you are engaging in spreading them by publication.

You can't expect people not to spot that, when you're having your say, alan29, exactly what the content is of your say and what it leads to, which is the very deprivation you speak against. Some of the arguments I've heard here during the course of this thread are all put to use in Scotland to exclude Gaelic language from public life in favour of a monoglot hegemony.

It has nothing to do with me.
I'm not against it but why should I have to be exposed to it or use it?
It's unnecessary.
It's useless.
It has no function.
It's only going to be used rarely.
It's too hard.
It's impractical.

The Latin in the mass suffers from exclusion on precisely these same grounds, if this thread is anything to go by. This is nothing more than the agenda of the whittling away of linguistic culture.

[Nick Baty]

Then why did your attempt at justification of your stance end in banality?

Seriously, you made me laugh and I'm concentrating on my briefs – they're being inspected by Edexcel next month!

[Calum Cille]

You used to use an ordinary washing powder until you discovered Edexcel.

[nazard]

Nope! My original argument was why ask us all to use Latin on a regular basis simply to make life easier for the few who might occasionally attend Mass in a foreign language? The question still stands. There might be many reasons for people to learn Latin, but the foreign travels of the few hardly seems reasonable.

Although that was your starting point, other, more significant, arguments have been raised. These include:

(1) It was the express wish of the Second Vatican Council.
(2) It connects people to their catholic heritage.
(3) It frees people from the whims of translators, who seem incapable of doing a satisfactory job.
(4) It connects people better to the vast treasury of catholic music.
(5) It helps people to be aware of their catholicism.
(6) It is welcoming to strangers.
(7) It helps to widen peoples monoglot cultural horizons.
(8) It fosters a sense of unity and belonging amongst catholics.

You have not responded to these in any depth. You have raised a whole net of red herrings. Could we please debate the topic seriously?

On many occasions you have supported the church's position about the assembly's singing of certain parts of the mass to, in my opinion, a greater extent than the church herself does. On the other hand, you seem happy to confound the church's position about the use of latin. How do you arrive at that position?

[Nick Baty]

I'm sure they are all good points, Nazard. Although I'm not sure about the "welcoming to strangers" bit as it is only welcoming if they themselves speak that particular language and we are all using it.

On the other hand, you seem happy to confound the church's position about the use of Latin.

Not at all. The Church asks that Latin be preserved and so it be it. But if Latin is to be fostered everywhere then many of us would be excluded from worship at the drop of a hat.

Our assembly is small – sometimes just 100 people. I know some of them come to us because their own church has a Latin Mass at that time and we have English. Their own church is, indeed, quite full so there's obviously a call for Mass in Latin. But how much smaller might our own assembly become if we were to use Latin? Well, the parish priest and I would be out for a start. Most of the older folk would go elsewhere – we're a small enough community to get quite a lot of feedback and Liverpool folk are quite honest and forthright in their opinions. Perhaps we'd be replaced by a younger community – there are quite a few younger priests and younger musicians who love Latin in general and the EF in particular.

Now while I personally do not particularly like Mass in Latin – although I would enjoy singing you heaps of the ordinaries from memory – I am not for a second suggesting we shouldn't have a Latin liturgy. Let's make it available for those who love it – and many do. But I will never accept, as a major argument, that we should foster it simply so the privileged few can attend Mass during their foreign jaunts.

I suppose I feel pretty much the same about the smoking ban. Those who wanted a ban on smoking in public places have had their wish. But if, as is beginning to happen, they campaign to stop us smoking in our cars, even at home, then I'll be much less tolerant.

So, please, enjoy your Latin liturgy. Enjoy being able to join in with it when you are abroad. Enjoy the music which goes with it (actually, we do a little of that, occasionally). But the Church has also given us liturgy in the vernacular and, despite the recent mangling, many of us love it.

Perhaps we dinosaurs will die off one day. And I'd love to think the words of the old translation will be used at my funeral. But I suspect some young – possibly yet unborn – priest will don his lace and biretta and mutter words I couldn't understand while alive. Perhaps I will then. Better still, perhaps I'd better ask one of my Anglican friends to celebrate my funeral liturgy. A woman (and assorted nuns) brought me into the world. How nice to have a woman priest to see me home.

[Calum Cille]

It's very clear from your last message that you're limited to thinking of the issue in terms of either-or.

I'm sure they are all good points, Nazard. Although I'm not sure about the "welcoming to strangers" bit as it is only welcoming if they themselves speak that particular language and we are all using it.

Can you pay attention to what is being said to you rather than what you imagine people to be saying to you? For the fourth time on this thread, no one is saying that all Catholics should be learning to hold a fluent conversation in Latin. We're talking about all Catholics learning the mass in Latin. The welcome to strangers would operate if all Catholics were capable of participating in the mass through Latin so that more or all of the liturgy could be said in Latin on account of any strangers who didn't speak the local language and who would feel more comfortable with the Latin than the local language because they too would be familiar with the mass in Latin.

But if Latin is to be fostered everywhere then many of us would be excluded from worship at the drop of a hat.

Could you explain that baffling assertion? And why at the drop of a hat?

But how much smaller might our own assembly become if we were to use Latin?

No smaller, if the same practice was occurring elsewhere, in which case no parishioner would have a refuge from it.

Well, the parish priest and I would be out for a start.

So how could you "enjoy singing ... heaps of the ordinaries from memory" if Latin is so inaccessible to you?

... I am not for a second suggesting we shouldn't have a Latin liturgy.

That's interesting but the point is that you don't have to have a Latin liturgy and, even if you do, it doesn't have to be every day or week.

But I will never accept, as a major argument, that we should foster it simply so the privileged few can attend Mass during their foreign jaunts.

No one suggested that the whole liturgy switch from vernacular to Latin on a regular basis "simply so" foreigners feel welcome, and nobody suggested the welcoming of foreigners as a major argument for the use of Latin. You gave the point that elevated status all on your own. "A" point is not simply "the" point because it is mentioned, Nick.

But the Church has also given us liturgy in the vernacular and, despite the recent mangling, many of us love it.

This statement clearly reflects this destructive post-Vatican II belief that any practice (such as the use of the vernacular) can be set above the unity of Catholics purely for love of the said practice.

Perhaps we dinosaurs will die off one day.

Leaving behind a generation of linguistically appreciative and/or tolerant individuals who can see value in the reasons for retaining Latin in the liturgy? I would like to see such an enlightened generation arise.

How nice to have a woman priest to see me home.

I tried looking for the number of the vicar of Dibley but all I could find was the BBC's.

[oopsorganist]

I have not read all posts on the thread.
There are two problems for me going on.
1 Latin Masses etc are exclusive unless we get suddenly to reintroduce Latin into the school curriculum (that's not good0
2 Latin Masses etc are going to end up with the label "Culture" and be the preserve of organisations like er English Heritage you see, when the local council support catholicism or Islam for cultures sake
all the Word goes down the drain.

[Calum Cille]

Latin Masses etc are exclusive unless we get suddenly to reintroduce Latin into the school curriculum (that's not good0

That's like saying jazz festivals are exclusive unless we teach jazz in schools. Kyrie eleison, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, three acclamations, Pater noster, Agnus Dei and a few other bits and bobs topped off by a Deo gratias, all said week after week, and everything else in a bilingual book. What's the big deal?

Latin Masses etc are going to end up with the label "Culture" and be the preserve of organisations like er English Heritage you see, when the local council support catholicism or Islam for cultures sake

What an imagination you have.

[Nick Baty]

It's very clear from your last message that you're limited to thinking of the issue in terms of either-or.

Not at all. Do it. Enjoy. Whatever floats your boat, zings your strings and put the sting in your sling.

no one is saying that all Catholics should be learning to hold a fluent conversation in Latin.

So, if you weren’t fluent, how would you understand all those eucharistic prayers, collects and prefaces which are used?

We're talking about all Catholics learning the mass in Latin.

I’m just picturing the scene on Everton Brow tomorrow morning if Graeme, our PP, announced we were having Mass in Latin. The response would be as far from “And with your spirit” as one could get.

But if Latin is to be fostered everywhere then many of us would be excluded from worship at the drop of a hat.

Could you explain that baffling assertion? And why at the drop of a hat?

Because those of us who don’t speak it wouldn’t understand it. And, therefore wouldn't be able to take part.

No smaller, if the same practice was occurring elsewhere, in which case no parishioner would have a refuge from it.

So we’d have to put up, shut up or get out?

So how could you "enjoy singing ... heaps of the ordinaries from memory" if Latin is so inaccessible to you?

I learned it parrot-fashion as a child. Don’t know what it mean but love the music and the sound of the words.

No one suggested that a whole Latin mass be held "simply so" foreigners felt welcome and nobody suggested the welcoming of foreigners as a major argument for the use of Latin.

Apologies. I thought that when Nazard said “It is welcoming to strangers” that he was saying that was a good reason for fostering Latin. I see now that he was simply stating that the point had been raised. But did I misread your statement that Latin “facilitates visiting groups of people who would otherwise feel a bit lost or excluded should the local community normally recite this kind of thing at mass: Zèzus aymàta uskitchinwàk uneyotiwàl k'tèmanguèlminè.”?

Leaving behind a generation of linguistically appreciative and/or tolerant individuals who can see value in all the reasons for retaining Latin in the liturgy? I would like to see such an enlightened generation arise.

Then, please God, take me before it happens.

Let's put it more simply. Noone is suggesting that those of you who love Latin shouldn't be able to celebrate in that language. Enjoy. On the other hand, I can go to Mass in English whenever I like – several times a day if I wish. And I shall continue to so do.

[Vox Americana]

It's the original language of the mass in the form in which we have it today. The vernacular translation is from no other language but Latin.

No Greek then?

[Calum Cille]

It's the original language of the mass in the form in which we have it today. The vernacular translation is from no other language but Latin.

No Greek then?

I stand corrected. Latin apart from one phrase in Greek.

[Vox Americana]

I stand corrected. Latin apart from one phrase in Greek.

It's not often that we can catch you out!

Presumably, the Latin translations of originals - Arameic, Greek, etc - was accurate in the first place and our vernacular translations also capture the essence of the originals... whatever 'accurate' means in terms of translation. If it isn't accurate, why are we Catholics so wedded to it as a basis for our vernacular translations?