Dr. Jeff Mirus is the Founder and President of CatholicCulture.org, one of the most popular Catholic websites on the Internet. CatholicCulture does a lot of good work for the Church, and we link to their articles frequently to buttress the points made in our own work.
Last week, however, Mirus wrote a perplexing article entitled, “The vernacular in, Latin out. Why?” In it, Mirus argues forcefully against the use of Latin in the liturgy:
I know that some Catholics remain very attached to Latin in the liturgy. The arguments in favor of it are easily summarized and a significant number of the Council fathers did make those arguments: In 1962, these arguments were as follows: First, Latin facilitated the universality of the Church because it enables every Catholic to worship in the same language; second, Latin had been used to good effect for a very long time, with the result that there was a great wealth of liturgical material in that language; third, the use of Latin made it easier to avoid certain dangers of change and experimentation which are congenial to the modern mind; fourth, the continued use of Latin in the liturgy would make it easier to maintain Latin as the official language of the Church.
There was merit in all of these points. However, it must be said that the first conveniently ignored other rites, traditions, and accommodations already in force in non-Western regions. Moreover, the third argument reflected a dominant fear of the pre-conciliar generation, the fear of running new risks (as I explained in Vibrant Catholicism, 1: Lamenting the entire 20th century). The great weakness of this attitude was its presumption that maintaining the status quo was not itself a grave risk—which was the whole point of Pope St. John XXIII in calling the Council. (Perhaps I should also mention that, as far as I can tell, no Council father made the argument, often heard later, that saying prayers in a language one did not understand created a more mysterious, reverent and transcendent atmosphere.)
His re-statement of the arguments in favor of Latin may sound like just “points” or opinions, but they are in fact drawn, at least in part, from Magisterial teaching at the time. While the unfamiliar may think his mention of 1962 was in reference to the opening of the Second Vatican Council in October of that year, there was another event that happened in February, 1962 that has special significance to this topic: the publication of Pope St. John XXIII’s apostolic constitution, Veterum Sapientia.
It is important to note that an apostolic constitution is the most authoritative form of papal document. More than an an apostolic exhortation or letter, more than an encyclical, the apostolic constitution sits at the top of the hierarchy of magisterial texts, along with conciliar documents and decrees. In other words, apostolic constitutions are binding on the entire Church.
So what does Veterum Sapientia say about Latin? More than we can adequately summarize here. Suffice to say that Mirus’ objections were already considered by Pope St. John in this important papal document. With that in mind, I will attempt to break down Mirus’ arguments so that we can see the ways in which this text corresponds to (and precludes) his objections. I will present a paraphrase/summary of Mirus’ argument first (only using quotation marks when quoting him directly), a response from Veterum Sapientia next, and if necessary, my own comment beneath.
Mirus: The argument that Latin facilitates the Church’s universality through a unified language of worship ignores “other rites, traditions, and accommodations in force in non-Western regions.”
Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.
Since “every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,” and since the Supreme Pontiffs have “true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful” of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.
My Comment: It is important to note that Pope St. John was specifically instructing those Churches of the Latin rite. That is to say – the Roman Catholic Church. The Apostolic See has always made provisions for the other rites of the Church to retain their structure and language, as is evident in the liturgies of the Byzantine, Ukranian, Greek, Melkite, Ethiopian Coptic, and other Catholic rites.
Strangely, Mirus glosses over the second argument in favor of Latin — namely, that it “had been used to good effect for a very long time, with the result that there was a great wealth of liturgical material in that language”; but this is a point of serious significance, not just in the liturgy, but in the Deposit of faith as a Whole. As Veterum Sapientia states:
[T]he Latin language “can be called truly catholic.” It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed “a treasure … of incomparable worth.” It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.
Mirus: The argument that the use of Latin made it easier to avoid certain dangers of change and experimentation which are congenial to the modern mind “reflected a dominant fear of the pre-conciliar generation, the fear of running new risks … The great weakness of this attitude was its presumption that maintaining the status quo was not itself a grave risk…”
Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.
But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.
My Comment: VS makes explicitly clear that the Church, “precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.” Immutability is a key feature of the retention of Latin. If there was a “dominant fear” of “running new risks” as Mirus states, the half-century since the Council has shown it to be a well-founded one. Aggiornamento has been proven to be a spectacular failure, as every poll conducted on core Catholic belief, Mass attendance, and adherence to moral teaching attests.
But it is also worth noting that a great deal of the discord now reigning in the Church is because of an inability to communicate effectively across cultures. To give a perfect and commonplace example: think of the frequency with which Catholics are upset upon reading a report of some strange thing that Pope Francis has been alleged to have said, only to be later informed that the confusion was due to a translation error.
It was the Church’s ancient wisdom that official pronouncements were made first in Latin, so that discrepancies such as these were easily cleared up, so that idiom and colloquialism were unable to confuse translators, and precision of thought and speech would bring clarity, not misunderstanding.
Mirus then goes on, again, to ignore the fourth argument he re-states in favor of Latin: that “continued use of Latin in the liturgy would make it easier to maintain Latin as the official language of the Church.”
Again, VS contends that this is an important concern:
We also, impelled by the weightiest of reasons — the same as those which prompted Our Predecessors and provincial synods — are fully determined to restore this language to its position of honor, and to do all We can to promote its study and use. The employment of Latin has recently been contested in many quarters, and many are asking what the mind of the Apostolic See is in this matter. We have therefore decided to issue the timely directives contained in this document, so as to ensure that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained and, where necessary, restored.
In the exercise of their [the Bishops] paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.
Mirus: Only the educated people in the West knew Latin, and that period of history had already come to an end. Latin was no longer the language of the people, or for that matter, of science, law, and medicine…
It is a matter of regret that so many people, unaccountably dazzled by the marvelous progress of science, are taking it upon themselves to oust or restrict the study of Latin and other kindred subjects…. Yet, in spite of the urgent need for science, Our own view is that the very contrary policy should be followed. The greatest impression is made on the mind by those things which correspond more closely to man’s nature and dignity. And therefore the greatest zeal should be shown in the acquisition of whatever educates and ennobles the mind. Otherwise poor mortal creatures may well become like the machines they build — cold, hard, and devoid of love.
Mirus: The language of international diplomacy had moved away from Latin by the mid-to-late 20th century, and its retention in various areas of study after its time as the vernacular was favored only because of a “Euro-centric” world – a world which was no longer in focus.
[T]he Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.
Mirus: Even the educated men and women of the latter half of the 20th century were ignorant of Latin.
There can be no doubt as to the formative and educational value either of the language of the Romans or of great literature generally. It is a most effective training for the pliant minds of youth. It exercises, matures and perfects the principal faculties of mind and spirit. It sharpens the wits and gives keenness of judgment. It helps the young mind to grasp things accurately and develop a true sense of values. It is also a means for teaching highly intelligent thought and speech.
Wherever the study of Latin has suffered partial eclipse through the assimilation of the academic program to that which obtains in State public schools, with the result that the instruction given is no longer so thorough and well-grounded as formerly, there the traditional method of teaching this language shall be completely restored. Such is Our will, and there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind about the necessity of keeping a strict watch over the course of studies followed by Church students; and that not only as regards the number and kinds of subjects they study, but also as regards the length of time devoted to the teaching of these subjects.
Mirus: Seminarians were also ignorant of Latin.
Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.
As is laid down in Canon Law (can. 1364) or commanded by Our Predecessors, before Church students begin their ecclesiastical studies proper they shall be given a sufficiently lengthy course of instruction in Latin by highly competent masters, following a method designed to teach them the language with the utmost accuracy. “And that too for this reason: lest later on, when they begin their major studies . . . they are unable by reason of their ignorance of the language to gain a full understanding of the doctrines or take part in those scholastic disputations which constitute so excellent an intellectual training for young men in the defense of the faith.”
We wish the same rule to apply to those whom God calls to the priesthood at a more advanced age, and whose classical studies have either been neglected or conducted too superficially. No one is to be admitted to the study of philosophy or theology except he be thoroughly grounded in this language and capable of using it.
In accordance with numerous previous instructions, the major sacred sciences shall be taught in Latin, which, as we know from many centuries of use, “must be considered most suitable for explaining with the utmost facility and clarity the most difficult and profound ideas and concepts.”
Mirus: Catholicism was experiencing growth in the third world — notably Africa and Asia — making Latin impractical since it did not form the basis for the languages of the people there.
[T]he “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, “is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons.” These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.”
Mirus: Non-European members of the Curia were treated as outsiders. To that end, Latin had become “the language of ecclesiastical insiders—the language of the club.”
[T]he Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority “as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws.” She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.
My Comment: This complaint requires further comment, since it steps outside the scope of Latin and into internal Church affairs. If Euro-centrism or other forms of elitism within the Curia are the problems, then deal with those problems. Latin has nothing to do with exclusionary practices, provided that prelates from across the world are educated in it, as they should be.
The Church, by its nature as a global, universal religion, requires a universal language to transcend nationalities and allow for communication amongst its prelates, clergy and theologians. If not Latin, then what? If Catholic constituencies of every nation are to communicate each in their own vernacular, this creates an obstacle to understanding where clarity and unity are of paramount importance.
Mirus: Latin affected all the Mass parts, not just the “Ordinary of the Mass” (the parts that always stay the same.) All of the Propers (the parts of the Mass that change) were also in Latin, as were the readings.
Veterum Sapientia (stated again as cited above):
In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.
My Comment: This is precisely the point of a universal liturgy for a universal Church. A Catholic of the Latin rite should be able to go to Mass in New York or Naples, Baton Rouge or Belgium, and experience the same liturgy. It is already a common practice during the Mass according to the 1962 Missal to offer the readings a second time in the vernacular preceding the homily, but the rest of the liturgy can (and should!) be easily followed in a hand missal. (I have written before about my own ignorance of Latin; it is no impediment in my attendance at the Traditional Latin Mass.)
Even Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy from the Second Vatican Council, stated in no uncertain terms:
36. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
In a more permissive section of the document, we read:
54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
Latin was never meant to be removed from the liturgy. This is not what the Council Fathers agreed to.
The loss of the Church’s universal liturgical language represents part of a larger phenomenon that is creating a new scattering of Babel within our Faith. With the additional deconstruction of the rubrics of the Mass in the Novus Ordo, we also have lost the uniformity of sacred posture, gesture, and vesture. The diversification of language and action within the context of modern liturgy creates a disunifying experience for Catholics. Many of us have experienced this when traveling. Picking a Mass at random in a strange town can mean an experience that is either comfortable and familiar or (most often) almost completely alien, depending on the circumstances.
Mirus: In addition, the other sacraments and the Divine Office were prayed in Latin.
My Comment: This is a point that Veterum Sapientia does not directly address, and is one I partially agree with. I believe fervently in the superiority of the theology in the older sacramental forms — particularly baptism — and I think Latin plays a common role here to that offered in the Liturgy. On the other hand, the matter of the Divine Office may merit some consideration. I know some priests who, through their proficiency in Latin, can pray the office in that language with no ill effect — and it seems clear that such proficiency was willed by Pope St. John for all priests. Still, I have no particular objection to the praying of the breviary in the vernacular, provided that it is a faithful translation. I have an electronic copy of the 1962 Divine Office with Latin and English side-by-side. I find the presence of both informative, and when I have the opportunity to pray it, I switch back and forth between the languages, depending on my familiarity with each section.
In conclusion, while I understand the pragmatic reasoning behind the objection Mirus presents, I find that these not only fall short, but in fact contradict the provisions laid out by Pope John XXIII, who issued his constitution “in the full consciousness of Our Office and in virtue of Our authority” and who said “We will and command that all the decisions, decrees, proclamations and recommendations of this Our Constitution remain firmly established and ratified, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, however worthy of special note.”
In other words – this is what the Church believes about Latin as the language of the Church. Neither Dr. Mirus — nor the bishops he goes on to quote from to bolster his arguments — have the authority to change it.
The universality of the Church’s living language is of particular importance in the common prayer of the liturgy, the communication between clergy, and in the production of documents pertaining to the deposit and practice of the faith. And when so many of these arguments boil down to “People don’t know this stuff anymore,” or “it’s just too difficult,” they ring particularly hollow. Literacy has never been higher in the world. Access to modern printing techniques and digital content makes it possible to put resources in the hands of every Catholic to help them to understand — or at least follow along — with any sacrament offered in Latin.
Good Pope John didn’t seem particularly impressed with this sort of argument, either. When addressing professors of Theology and Philosophy, he wrote, “professors of these sciences in universities or seminaries are required to speak Latin and to make use of textbooks written in Latin. If ignorance of Latin makes it difficult for some to obey these instructions, they shall gradually be replaced by professors who are suited to this task. Any difficulties that may be advanced by students or professors must be overcome by the patient insistence of the bishops or religious superiors, and the good will of the professors.”
With respect to Dr. Mirus, vernacular comes and goes, but Latin will always be the living language of the Church.
UPDATE: Despite the still-binding nature of Veterum Sapientia, some will be tempted (erroneously) to write it off as a pre-conciliar document. I was reminded by a reader, however, that the current code of Canon Law also mandates that seminarians learn Latin:
Can. 249 The program of priestly formation is to provide that students not only are carefully taught their native language but also understand Latin well and have a suitable understanding of those foreign languages which seem necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of pastoral ministry.
There’s really no wiggle room on this.
Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have eight children. You can find more of his writing at his Substack, The Skojec File.
Brilliant! You have countered the sloth of Modernists with the Apostolic Constitution VETERUM SAPIENTIA, which, if I am not mistaken, means True Knowledge. Awesome, Steve!
It gives me another way to answer those opposed to Latin in the Mass, who try to tell me that Jesus didn’t speak Latin. Nonsense, of course He did! As God, He knows all hearts and minds. As Man, He knew the working languages of the region (Greek, Roman, Aramaic) as well as the language of worship, Hebrew.
‘of Ancient Wisdom’
The language is unimportant, and one tongue is not greater than another. Latin is not greater than English, and English is not greater than Latin. Personally, I prefer English in the liturgy, because then we can focus more on properly worshiping God than on pronouncing Latin correctly. It is not a case of sloth, it is a case of removing unnecessary distractions from our relationship with Jesus.
Porque tus preferencias son tu dios. ¡Haz un lio!
Non sunt. Neque Latin est.
Why not make knowing Latin a requirement for Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Orders, Marriage, Anointing, and Penance. It’s not right that only the priests know the secret, sacred language of worship. And they all don’t pronounce Latin the same way. IMO, lots of folks would rather not read a translation as the priest speaks the words in latin. It was only when I studied Latin that I really understood “Orate fratres” and why the priest turned around and stretched out his arms.
Also, Jeff Muris acts as though the ONLY issue is Latin: but the Novus Ordo was a vast change in content as well.
How well do you think it would have gone over to suggest just translating the mass then in place? The point was revolution, not the vernacular: and revolutionaries do not permit dissent–and so the traditional mass was effectively, though not canonically, suppressed.
Before the Novus Ordo was instituted, the old Mass was entirely in the vernacular. I memorized the Canon in English in my youth because of this. Mind you, the translation of all the texts were accurate …why? because the translators all referred to the Latin – not some translation of a translation of a re-write.
Coming upon monks reverently chanting their Office in English, [an accurate translation not used today] I remember the very phrases, they still ring in my head and help me to pray fervently.
Yes Latin is the language of the Church. It is necessary. for accuracy, cohesion, legality.
Is this author asking, ‘is it necessary in every instance?’ –i mean as long as the translations are vitally faithful?
I do wonder why, if Latin is the language of the Church, why other rites and stuff are allowed vernacular and other languages, such as Slavonic. After all, all their Church documents, rules and decrees are always communicated in Latin.
I do wonder sometimes about the significance of Latin and all the contexts over the history of the Church.
Many years ago, as an altar server,I used to pray in Latin at the foot of the altar. Sometimes, I forgot the words and just mumbled. When it changed to English it felt good. However, now I do have second thoughts about the change. The reverence seems to have gone.
I believe that prayers associated with ritual ceremonies, like the Mass and Baptisms, could be said in Latin. The readings could be in the vernacular.
Hindus and Buddhists chant in Sanskrit – a language as dead as Latin. Muslims all over the world pray in Arabic. Al-Islam website says: “Prayer in Arabic cements the Islamic brotherhood and emphasizes the universal character of Islam. Islam has come for the entire Human race.” Wonderful! Does this not apply to Latin?
And don’t forget the revival of the Hebrew language.
Latin facilitates the communication of Catholic truth and the converse seems to be happening without it, especially with Pope Francis and his translators. I think we should go back to the 1962 version of the Mass in Latin. Among other things it would help communicate the richness and mystery of the faith, probably would have much appeal to the young and would help renew overall interest in the Catholic Church.
Kind of wondering about something, because I doubt the Diocese I belong to is the only one; because it as a whole from the Bishop on down through the clergy and into the indoctrinated seminarians, believe and teach that Latin is dead, there will be no Latin Mass of any kind; I was wondering since it isn’t faithful to Canon Law or even the Apostolic Constitution; what are the Dioceses called if not faithful to the Church and what should the laity do with the priest and bishop not budging on such well indoctrinated ideology?
For all those who question “Why Latin?”, may I recommend a short book by Christine Mohrmann called “Liturgical Latin: Its Origins and Character.” I would also recommend it to Dr. Mirus but I would suspect someone in his position has already read it. Latin is not just an “old” language but a sacred language.
Latin is no more sacred than English, Finnish, or German. While I agree that the Church should maintain Ecclesiastical Latin as her official tongue, in part because it does give her her own dialect, I also humbly think it foolish to celebrate the Mass in Latin rather than the vernacular exclusively, if only because not everyone knows Latin. This is purely me, but I like to actually know what’s going on without having to carefully listen to determine where we are in the Mass and then flip through a book desperately trying to find the right place. And if the priest has bad Latin pronunciation? Forget it.
The Latin language is not some insurmountable Kilimanjaro. And much like children learn a language by hearing and learning as time passes, Catholics who regularly attend Latin Mass, grow to understand the meaning.
There is no need to desperately follow the missal. Experiencing the mass and praying in union with the priest – not just following word for word – is fruitful. The structure of the TLM alone carries a body through so long as the will is fixed.
“I also humbly think”
¡Tu humilidad is muy admirabile!
Imagine there is a quilt, not exceptionally beautiful perhaps, but which has been passed down the generations in your family since one of your great-grandmothers made it in the 19th century or so. Being such an old heirloom, it is mostly kept away in the attic, duly protected, though it may be taken out and draped over the sofa for major family gatherings during the holidays – the children of course, not being allowed to sit in said sofa. Now you have another quilt, which you use every day for multiple purposes; from covering yourself at night, to protecting your car’s interior while hauling heavy stuff from place to place. Undoubtedly the second, younger, quilt is of more use to you. But, unless you have very little poetry and romance in you, unless you have no attachment to your family or no value for tradition, unless you only care about material things, in short, unless you are the worst kind of industrial-era modern, you will be sorrier to lose the generations-old quilt than to lose the useful one. The heirloom quilt on the strength of its age and on how it has been used and how it hasn’t been used, is more “sacred” than the everyday quilt – even if there are few intrinsic differences between the two.
Likewise with Latin. It is very old – it has been used by the Church from her beginnings – and for generations was being used almost exclusively for ecclesial purposes. It is therefore more sacred than the vernacular languages. The definition of sacred is “set apart”. Nobody could dispute that Latin is set apart. And that is one of its virtues, not a flaw!
Your frustration with the Traditional Latin Mass stems from having the wrong expectations about it. Coming from the Novus Ordo in the vernacular, naturally you expect to know exactly what is going on at each moment, to be able to grasp the meaning of the words being spoken, and to be able to respond vocally with ease. When that is what one expects to do at a Traditional Mass, frustration is the normal outcome (unless one has spent quite a bit of time studying the Mass and practicing the responses). However, if you go to the Traditional Mass with the simple goal of offering prayer and worship, you will see that the Traditional Mass makes this easier than the Novus Ordo. As there are no rubrics for the people, you can worship in the manner you find most suitable for you at that moment. From praying quietly for your own intentions to following the Missal minutely and doing all the responses, there is a great deal of freedom for the worshipper in the pew at the Traditional Mass.
You might in time also see that the Novus Ordo’s relative simplicity is misleading in that, by giving you a pre-made way of participating in the Mass, it tricks you into thinking that understanding the miracle of the Eucharist, grasping the full meaning of the Word of God, and responding appropriately is relatively easy when it is in fact the work of a lifetime of holiness. It can be said then, that the Traditional Mass’s greater complexity, use of a set-apart language, intricate choreography, etc., actually makes it more authentic: at its is core is a great mystery and a challenge: and it’s not afraid to show it.
By saying that the Novus Ordo Mass is misleading, you imply, if not outright declare, that it is a sham, a deception, and that the Tridentine Mass is somehow superior. This is wrong. The Novus Ordo is not superior to the Tridentine, and the Tridentine is nor superior to the Novus Ordo. They are both the same Mass, they are equal.
Nevertheless, it by no means “tricks” one into thinking that they understand the mystery of the Eucharist. Having gone to these Masses all of my life, I can attest to this fact. Also, I have been to Tridentine Masses, and at an age when I had not yet formed opinions about such things. Even then, my young mind preferred the Novus, because, contrary to what you say, it is “easier” than the Tridentine, because the rubrics in the Tridentine (and there are rubrics) are more complex because of the Latin.
If anything, the Latin language obscures the meaning of the Mass more than reveals it, because not everyone understands it.
Additionally, the Church only used Latin from the fourth century, not from the beginning.
The two liturgies are not the same, equal, or equivalent. There are significant differences between them. If you’ve never read it, I highly suggest the “Ottaviani Intervention,” which was sent to Pope Paul VI as a theological critique of the Novus Ordo’s deficiencies. At the time, Ottaviani was the Prefect of the CDF, not just any cardinal. I highly recommend it as a starting point:
You are missing an important distinction: the difference between validly consecrated Eucharist and a liturgy that properly embodies the ethos of Catholic worship and sacrifice. In both the Novus Ordo and the TLM, the transubstantiation takes place. But the context surrounding it is vastly different, and in the case of the Novus Ordo, seriously deficient, insofar as it diminishes contemplation of the mystery it is supposed to celebrate.
That the Novus Ordo is “easier” is no argument in its favor. There is no challenge to enter into the space of the sacred, to transcend, to sublimate. What one encounters in the NO is entirely quotidian, and as such, easily taken for granted. Another good resource I would recommend on the importance of aesthetics and anthropology in worship is Martin Mosebach’s, “The Heresy of Formlessness.”
Please don’t mistake me: the TLM is not *that* difficult, but it does require effort. My 8-year-old son can follow along in a hand missal. I talk about this more here:
Finally, I strongly recommend that you read all of Veterum Sapientia before commenting further on Latin. It is an authoritative and binding document, and it has never been abrogated – just ignored.
The Mass is the Mass. It is wrong, and bordering on at least schism to say that one validly ordained liturgy is superior to another. Both the Novus Ordo (Ordinary and Extraordinary) and the Tridentine Mass are valid liturgies and of equal merit. The only truly significant difference is the language, neither of which (Latin or vernacular) add to or detract from the Sacrifice of the Mass. Any imagined superiority of one valid liturgy over another is just that: imagined.
I said that the Novus Ordo is “easier” purely for the sake of the argument. Ywis, neither is easier or harder than the other, they are just easy and hard in different ways.
They only reason that the Novus Ordo can be taken as quotidian is if one does not respect it as a valid liturgy, or if one is so jaded that they have ceased to take it seriously. The same could, and I’m sure does, happen with the Tridentine. Contrary to what some people say, it is not impervious to being corrupted or misused, things which are levied against the Novus Ordo by so-called “Traditionalists.”
To reiterate a truth I cannot stress enough: it is very wrong to say that one liturgy is superior to another, as this is not the mind of the Church or Christ.
I’m happy to discuss this issue further with you, but not until you’ve done enough due diligence that I don’t have to explain everything. I’ve been studying theology for over 20 years, and the two liturgies in contrast to each other for the past 10. I still have much to learn. This is a huge issue, and it requires serious examination.
Your assertions, though well-intentioned, are incorrect. You need to do some reading. The Ottaviani intervention is free. Start there.
“…It is wrong, and bordering on at least schism to say that one validly ordained liturgy is superior to another.” That is ridiculous, Joseph, and negates the duty of Catholics to make proper judgments.
A valid mass can be had amid various abuses. And a liturgy that by its very construct is open to more abuses – or endless options – can lawfully said to be inferior in structure/form. Especially when it comes to the promotion of unity.
Here’s also another resource. A doctrinal comparison of the two missals and Masses:
I did not mean to imply that the Novus Ordo is a sham or a deception. There are no rubrics *for the people* at the Traditional Mass – that’s just a fact. But oh yes, the rubrics (for the clergy) of the Traditional Mass are more complex than those of the Novus Ordo, though not because of the Latin; keep in mind that the Novus Ordo can also be celebrated in Latin. There is just more stuff going on at a Traditional Mass.
There are rubrics in the Tridentine: there are responses for the congregation, instructions on when to stand and kneel and cross themselves. By definition, these are rubrics.
Those responses are for the servers. When the people also say the responses, it is called a “Dialogue Mass”. For a long time, the norm was that people did not say most of the responses, and you can still find Traditional Masses like that today. For those in the pews, saying the responses is wholly optional. Just wanted to leave that clear.
1. I disagree that they are equal.
Vocations and Mass attendance have been decimated since the beginning of the Novus Ordo Masses. “Ease of Worship” is not as measurable.
2. I disagree that the Latin obscures the meaning of the Mass.
If anything, it is the fluidity of Modern English which muddies the crystal clarity of the ancient language. (“The ghost is eager but the meat is rotten.” from Matthew 26: 41 and Mark 14: 38)
3. I disagree that the Church used Latin only from the 4th century onward. See John 19: 19 – 22. Would Paul, a Roman Citizen, have written to fellow Romans, in Rome, in any language but their own Roman Latin?
There is factual evidence supporting each of my assertions.
In fact, many Roman citizens, among them Paul, spoke Greek (Koine), not Latin, as their first language. He MAY have spoken Latin, but there exists not one scintilla of proof for this assertion. Of course the notice affixed to the Cross (John 19) was in three languages: Aramaic was the local “language of the street”; Greek, the language of Romans like Paul in the eastern Mediterranean area; and Latin, the official language of the Empire. And ALL educated Romans living in the capital of the Empire spoke fluent Greek, so Paul could quite well have written to fellow Romans anywhere in the then known world in Greek. (Mel Gibson made a serious mistake by having local officials and soldiers speak Latin in his epic film; they should, of course, have spoken Koine.)
As for your assertion that Latin clarifies rather than obscures the meaning of the Mass, you are toying with the meaning of the word “obscures”. Latin may be more precise than English (depending entirely on the skill of the translator always), but what Latin most certainly “obscures” is the meaning of the Mass FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW LATIN (most of the world these days). We shouldn’t mix bananas and apples when discussing this matter. (Btw, the Novus Ordo Missae can be said in Latin. My wife and I were married in Latin in 1981 and we needed no special permission from the chancery since it was the “new” Mass. We even said our vows in Latin, a language we both understand.)
Finally, your first assertion is an excellent example of the post hoc propter hoc fallacy. No one can legitimately lay falling (plummeting) Mass attendance at the door of the Novus Ordo Missae. Again, the operative word is “may”: it may be a contributing factor, but it just as well may not be. Ditto for declining vocations. What we do know, however, is that the scandals of the late 1990s and early 2000s were peopled by a majority of perpetrators and cover-up bishops who grew up and were ordained in the pre-Vatican II Church. Clearly, there was a lot of rot under the façade of holiness and seriousness you hint at here.
You are a product of your religious environment, Joseph. You go to Mass, in the vernacular, and you need so much in order to have an idea of what’s going on. What if you were in a country whose language you did not know? What would you do at the Mass in that country? Are you saying that with all the Novus Ordo Masses you have attended in English, you wouldn’t know what was happening during the Novus Ordo Mass in that country? Do some reading on the development of the Mass. I will bet that whether you like the Latin Mass or not, you will understand that Ecclesiastical Latin is a sacred language.
And what do you do if the celebrant or homilist speaks with an unfamiliar accent or dialect? If you currently know any of the Romance languages, you already have a head start into knowing Latin, because Vulgar Latin is the foundation of the Romance languages as well as a great deal of the English language. I attended my last TLM when I was about 8 years old; my brother was 7. Both of us have easily learned Spanish as adults without ever taking Latin, and when I encountered my first EF Mass, I REMEMBERED most of the prayers.
Educationally, the exposure on a regular basis to a second language enriches the first language of virtually every learner. Really KNOWING the Mass in your heart AND in your head amplifies your ability to pray. That language need not be conversational, or common to reap tangible as well as spiritual benefits. The stability of Ecclesiastical is vital to maintain the stability of Dogma across time and culture.
Latin was the language of the despicable, brutish Romans who tortured, dishonored, and nailed Jesus to that damnable cross, where He died, in utter pain and suffering. And they kept killing His followers for generations afterwards. Using their language is an insult to Jesus, His Father and Mother, the Holy Spirit and the thousands of martyrs who suffered out of their love for Jesus.
Childish! The purpose of “tongues” or “languages” are to communicate, not to sound beautiful or to give people warm fuzzy feelings of piety, reverence, or superiority. “Tongues” or “languages” are morally neutral, and they are unrelated to reverence, piety, and behavior. There are many people who irrationally believe that Latin leads to piety, reverence, and adherence to the Ten Commandments. That is foolish thinking, or what St. Paul implies to be childish reasoning. Currently, Latin is a foreign language for everyone in the world, so speaking in Latin is at least analogous to speaking in tongues. So, refer to St. Paul’s discussion on tongues:
“Now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how shall I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will any one know what is played? And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? So with yourselves; if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible, how will any one know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and
none is without meaning; but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. So with yourselves; since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. Therefore,
he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. Otherwise,
if you bless with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all; nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue. Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature…If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?… Let all things be done for edification.” (1 Corinthians 14:6-20; 23, 26)
“Brethren, do not be children in your thinking.” Yes, St. Paul would label the reasoning of those scrupulously attached to Latin as childish. Just being a messenger here, don’t get mad at the messenger!
¡Bien dicho, pendejito!
A sainted pope authoritatively disagrees with you. Your move.
And not just a sainted pope, but the sainted pope who launched the Second Vatican Council.
Speaking in Latin is not like speaking in tongues, since Latin is a language and tongues isn’t.
So? Did you order Br. Alexis’s Latin course? Any reviews forthcoming?
V II Document, Dogmatic Constitution – “SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM”
” 36.1 Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” etc.
It would be most “pastoral” if all Diocese seminarians were required to learn both the OF and EF Masses – to serve all the people of God.
Honestly, the language in which the Mass is said is unimportant, and it is foolish to constantly perseverate upon it. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, chose to switch to the vernacular for the liturgy, which it also deemed good to change. It is not our place to question these things, since they are in no way evil. Yes, the Novos Ordo Mass is good, equal to the Tridentine, because it is the same Mass, the same Sacrifice of Jesus. Just because it is offered in a different tongue or a different way (as long as it’s not heretical), that in no way deminishes its validity, contrary to what the schismatic SSPX says.
The Holy Ghost can also operate via permissive will, Joseph, to give us a taste of what we ask for only to learn the wisdom of what came before and thereby appreciate its return.
“Do not say: How is it that former times were better than these? For it is not out of wisdom that you ask about this.” Ecclesiastes 7:10
You really don’t want to get into a tit for tat on Bible verses. Jeremiah 6: 16 — “Thus saith the Lord: Stand ye on the ways, and see and ask for the old paths which is the good way, and walk ye in it: and you shall find refreshment for your souls.”
You misunderstand, Joseph I am not stating that former times were better than these. They weren’t. Times change – people, however, the constant in any era, and their penchant for all manner of sin and immorality do not. In other words, people are still tempted by the same things.
This is why the methods employed in the past should be revisited. For it is the method and/or medicine that was formerly used to combat and/or forestall such issues, that which has been discarded in modern times, that would give the false impression that former times were better.
Kind of like a street corner stop light. When there is no stop light, people can get killed by speeding cars. A petition is put forward for a stop light. Then the light is employed and as time progresses someone gets the idea that there really is no reason to keep the light there as it impedes the flow of traffic. And nobody is getting hurt there. The light is removed. Time advances and people are being hurt at the intersection and hence the problem of the past reoccurs. It’s a pendulum.
Despite what you think, Latin as a unifying language, was employed for a reason – good reason. To undo that wisdom and/or to negate it is to invite the problems that its usage was intended to forestall. That is the foolishness of thinking that every idea is of the Holy Ghost or that it is His active desire that we move that way. God gives us leeway to chastise ourselves by our own foolish negation of the reality of human weakness.
¿Qué es un “Novos Ordo Mass”?
*Novus. Sorry for the mistake.
The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, did not entirely switch to the vernacular for the liturgy. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, actually ordered that Latin NOT be completely removed from from the liturgy… in both the Extraordinary AND the Ordinary form as noted above and in multiple other Vatican II conciliar and post-conciliar documents. (See also: the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the Instruction on the Liturgy (1964),and Instruction on Music in the Sacred Liturgy)
Says you. I’m afraid you are among a crowd that may not agree with your ‘definitive’ statements, no matter how often you publish them.
For those who are interested in the EF Mass (aka – Extraordinary Form, Latin, TLM) the FSSP has inexpensive Latin-English Booklet Missals and Latin-Spanish Booket Missals available for approx. $6.50 each.
For a Sunday Missal – The “St. Edmund Campion Missal and Hymnal” for about $33.00.
For a Daily Missal – The 1962 Missal by Baronius Press for about $60.00
For those new to the Latin Mass, remember that we must receive the Lord on the tongue / and while kneeling (unless physically unable). This is in accord with the 1962 Missal.
Clothing should be business attire. No shorts, No jeans, No shirts with obvious advertising; dress modestly, etc.
Although it is not required, mantillas for ladies and girls are available at EWTN catalogue beginning at about $6.50.
Here is a link to some FSSP locations in the USA and Canada.
Otherwise contact your own Diocese to find out where the nearest Latin Mass is located.
For those who do not know and may be interested: ” Differences between the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbwrH53-4oU
It seems to me that it is proper for a religion[s] to have a sacred language. How is it that it appears that the Church is neglecting one of its scared languages Latin?
How odd it is that children in the same Mother, the Church, cannot worship in unison with her
catholics can worship in latin. why write that they cannot?
what is sacred is not a matter of perception or of popular vote. nor does it make much sense to think that sacred language is about the particular language being used rather than the sentiments and thoughts expressed.
Are you Catholic? Where you do you worship on Sundays, and in what language?
Sacred/Holy, the meaning if which means set apart for God. The language is set apart for him rather than us.
With respect to the use of Latin in the Divine Office Mirus quotes Cardinal Leger approvingly but ignores the fact that Sacrosanctum concilium specifically required the use of Latin in the Divine Office. (In celebrating the divine office in choir, clerics are bound to preserve the Latin language (n. 85) One Peter Five makes some good points here in discussing Veterum sapientia however both parties are missing the points made by Paul VI in his letter Sacrificum Laudis sent to religious orders obliged to say the Office in Latin in 1966. The pope was very disappointed to hear of the disobedience of those who wished to do away with Latin in the Divine Office: “Yet, from letters which some of you have sent, and from many other sources, We learn that discordant practices have been introduced into the sacred liturgy by your communities or provinces (We speak of those only that belong to the Latin Rite.) For while some are very faithful to the Latin language, others wish to use the vernacular within the choral office. Others, in various places, wish to exchange that chant which is called Gregorian for newly-minted melodies. Indeed, some even insist that Latin should be wholly suppressed.
We must acknowledge that We have been somewhat disturbed and saddened by these requests. One may well wonder what the origin is of this new way of thinking and this sudden dislike for the past; one may well wonder why these things have been fostered. He reminds them of the will of the Council in this regard : “In celebrating the divine office in choir, clerics are bound to preserve the Latin language (n. 85).
In the second Instruction (de lingua in celebrandis Officio divino et Missa “conventuali” aut “communitatis” apud Religiosos adhibenda), published on 23 November 1965, that law was reinforced, and at the same time due consideration was shown for the spiritual advantage of the faithful and for the special conditions which prevail in missionary territories.  Therefore, for as long as no other lawful provision is made, these laws are in force and require the obedience in which religious must excel, as dear sons of holy Church.”
He makes a number of other points but is clearly not bending on the requirement for Latin in the Divine Office: “In any case, beloved Sons, the requests mentioned above concern such grave matters that We are unable to grant them, or to derogate now from the norms of the Council and of the Instructions noted above. Therefore we earnestly beseech you that you would consider this complex question under all its aspects. From the good will which we have toward you, and from the good opinion which we have of you, We are unwilling to allow that which could make your situation worse, and which could well bring you no slight loss, and which would certainly bring a sickness and sadness upon the whole Church of God. Allow Us to protect your interests, even against your own will. It is the same Church which has introduced the vernacular into the sacred liturgy for pastoral reasons, that is, for the sake of people who do not know Latin, which gives you the mandate of preserving the age-old solemnity, beauty and dignity of the choral office, in regard both to language, and to the chant.
Obey, then, these prescriptions sincerely and calmly. It is not an excessive love of old ways that prompts them.  They derive, rather, from Our fatherly love for you, and from Our concern for divine worship.”
As would be expected the pope’s instructions and call to obedience were simply ignored by all the major religious orders who went on their way to continual disobedience
. Paul VI’s letter on this can be read in its entirety at this link:
Admittedly, I was unaware of these instructions on the Divine Office. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. It always seems that the Church has forgotten more than she knows.
As for Pope Paul VI’s disappointment, the feeling is mutual. For a man who didn’t like all these changes, he certainly ushered many of them in, or did nothing when they showed up on his doorstep. Why the same pope who said “The smoke of satan has entered the Church” would also suppress the St. Michael prayer (and the other Leonine prayers) is beyond me.
I share your concerns about Paul VI. And just for the record on the issue of the vernacular in the Divine Office he simply gave in to the religious orders on this issue in 1970 when he issued Laudis Canticum in which he gave in to the disobedience . And so, an express directive of an ecumenical council was overturned by disobedience. Quite similar to the Holy See’s instruction to all publishers of missals in 1964 which stipulated a requirement for a Latin text of the liturgy in all of them. But not a single publisher complied, so it was quietly withdrawn later on.
I am not as educated in Church History as all others commenting – I am just a cradle Catholic who became a firmly committed Catholic as an adult only after beginning to attend the Mass in Latin. Here is my family’s experience to support a universal language in our Universal Church: My father left the United States in the late 60s to volunteer with the Peace Corps in South America. He left having attended the only Mass there was, Mass in Latin, was able to fully participate in Masses throughout his travels in South America, and yet returned to a Mass in America, just changed to the Mass of Paul VI, that was barely recognizable. My sister, 35 years later, served in the Peace Corps in Africa, after travelling throughout Europe as a study abroad student. Following the Peace Corps, she travelled/volunteered throughout Asia and Costa Rica. She not only was unable to fully participate in any Mass she attended, since she did not speak every language of every country she visited, she more than a few times ended up realizing that she was not actually in a Catholic Church partway through services (most often, she realized she was in an Anglican or other Protestant Church where the pastor dresses similar to a priest)! Yes, the miracle of the Eucharist still occurred at all Catholic Masses she attended; of course she understands that it would regardless of what language was spoken. But what a heartbreak to not participate in a Mass for months or years at a time! She was able to distinguish mosques, temples, etc. without a problem. Honestly, even fast food restaurants and clothing stores can be easily recognized all over the world! We, as human beings, can learn any language passably if it means travel and excitement and fun, but not the language of our history? My parents returned to our diocesan Latin Mass about a decade ago. Since returning, my own family and my sister have joined them, and our own knowledge of our faith has increased immeasurably (we all attended Catholic school, as well – but cannot believe the lack of education in our own faith!). It has not been difficult to follow along in the missals; in fact, if you understand even a little bit of other Latin-based languages, or have studied medicine, art, history, science…you will be able to recognize so much more than you think. We are an incredibly literate society – how offensive to be told that we can’t learn the Latin for our Mass! Are Americans who are able to learn Hebrew or Arabic more educated than the average Catholic? As an aside, we have found that our children (ages 4 and 18 months) behave so well during the Latin Mass– but not in any Novus Ordo Masses we attend. I don’t know the explanation for this, except that in the Latin Mass, there is such a sense of quiet reverence – no chatting, no one trying to “entertain” my children during Mass, etc. We understand and teach them that the Miracle of the Mass occurs wherever there is a Catholic priest saying Mass, but our experience shows us so well that there is a clear difference between the two, and it has become harder and harder for us to understand why such a change happened.
Dear Mr. Skojec. Tsk, tsk, tsk, VS was before the deluge. Why are you such a rigid Pharisee beholden to the rules and laws of the past that we have left behind?
We are living in the springtime of the new pentecost in the civilisation of love and yet to read you Pharisees, one would think that NewChurch was still about order and reason.
I suggest you write down your sins and burn them in a Hibachi and then close your eyes and fall backwards into the arms of you wife and I think that will make you feel much better; failing that, consider a firewalk or maybe joining a drum circle inside a sweat lodge.
“Mirus: Latin affected all the Mass parts, not just the “Ordinary of the Mass” (the parts that always stay the same.) All of the Propers (the parts of the Mass that change) were also in Latin, as were the readings.”
Boo-hoo. I don’t know Latin but I participate better at an all Latin Mass. The modern mind can’t handle that statement.
I really don’t get the obsession of having the lay faithful know what is being prayed at every single moment. It doesn’t “enrich” me to understand it in vernacular. The priest is offering worship and praise to God in the changing parts and that is fine by me – this enhances my participation as I am relying on him because he represents Christ.
On the other hand in the Ordinary parts I know what is happening so I follow along. The perfect rhythm of lay involvement and then priestly intercession, a distinguishing mark the priesthood and a differentiation between clergy and laity, unlike what we have going on today.
This is the true mean between two extremes: one were lay participation is non-existent and the other were lay participation is clericalized and the priest role is merely a “leader” or “president.”
far more people love the Novus Ordo than any other form of the Eucharist.
A curious circumstance is that sometimes it is better not to know what is being said. For example, yesterday’s psalm response (OF) was, “The Lord has revealed to the nations his saving power.” As I repeated the words, I said to myself, “Well, that’s not true.” Anyone can think of many other examples. But said in a liturgical language, the words have a certain distance from “current events” and become a hope or a prayer, even if you do know what they mean.
Poor Dr. Mirus has the habit of very badly arguing his position on such issues, which are usually indefensible, anyway. He once tried to assert that the Jews remain God’s chosen people (contrary to what the popes have taught), and that this would become obvious if only we would “Read Romans chapter 11 slowly in its entirety.” I took him at his word and read Romans 11 slowly: http://catholicism.org/a-slow-reading-of-romans-xi.html
It didn’t work.
Perhaps Dr. Mirius ought to reread Luke 19:27 and read the notes about that verse in The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide
“But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and kill them before me.” (Luke 19:27)
Here is a Lapide, who’s not exactly PC:
Verse 27. But as for those my enemies (the Jews, His citizens), who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither (to My tribunal, in the valley of Josaphat and Jerusalem) and kill them before me. In the Greek, slay them in my presence. Our Lord alludes to those victorious Kings who sacrifice and slay their conquered rebels. By this destruction Christ signifies the extreme judgment of the Jews and His other enemies, and their condemnation to eternal death in Gehenna, and that a living and vital death, where they will be perpetually tormented by death-dealing punishments and flames, and yet will never die. Our Lord alludes to Titus, who slaughtered the conquered Jews. Thereby He understands the literal meaning to be precisely the condemnation of the Jews, and the Gehenna which He will impose upon them when He shall come again from heaven for judgment, to judge and condemn the Jews and the reprobate.
Our first Pope and the Apostles (Acts) went into Synagogues and the houses of Jews and preached Christ and Conversion whereas modern Popes and Bishops enter Synagogues and do not preach Christ and Conversion (we call that continuity).
One reason our Popes and Bishop do not preach Christ and Conversion to the Messias-Deniers is that the first time they did that would be the last time they are allowed to enter a Synagogue.
Ecumenism is the Universal Solvent of Tradition.
Pray for our Pope and Prelates for they have the DUTY to preach Christ and Conversion – Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel – and when they don’t they are, objectively speaking, committing a mortal sin – as the great commentary of the great Cornelius a Lapide tells us.
O, and one last thing; there is one and only one Holocaust and that is the Holocaust of Christ on Calvary which is the Pluperfect fulfillment of all the old testament holocausts (types).
The Holocaust is the Salvific action of Jesus – during which His burning charity replaced material fire – and that is the ONLY HOLOCAUST .
I have no hatred of jews qua Jews but they have an enduring hatred of The Messias and they will not accept Him as their saviour and it is doing them no good for us to speak about the war crimes of WW2 as what they have tried to label those crimes.
The Nazis were racial supremacists and the killing of all of their opponents – Christians, Jews, Sodomites, Gypsies, Pagans etc – was not a offering to God consumed by fire.
The ironic truth is that it is the Jews who are the racial supremacists before whom we are expected to bow.
The Jews teach that Jesus is the bastard son of Mary who was raped by a Roman Soldier while she was menstruating and that He was justly condemned and executed for the crime of Blasphemy and that Jesus is in Hell submerged in boiling shit.
And yet we surrender to their captious complaints that our Holy Mass offends them and so we change the words of Our holy Mass, thus, as was pointed out by one Pope, admitting that we were in error for a thousand plus years.
Before the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church (outside of which there is neither Salvation or Sanctification) gives in to any more of the demands of the Messias-Deniers, the Pope and Prelature must tel them to change their Talmud and change the prayers prayed in their synagogues of Satan which call down imprecations and curses on us before we even speak to them to say nothing about entering their synagogues of Satan.
Another reason for Latin expressed here: http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/2015/06/17/laudato-sii/
Priests say Masses, old type, modern type. They all produce what Jesus did (died on Calvary and rose) and what He directed people to do (consume Him). If the style of a Mass-within the Roman Catholic Church-is not to people’s (Catholics) liking, they’re free to go to one that is-within the Roman Catholic Church.