www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall More Ordinariate Disappointment

I think this is largely because there is a fond familiarity with the antiquated versions of their mother tongues among people of the eastern churches; whereas among those of the western church, with the exception of those who speak the Romance languages, the sound of Latin is very unfamiliar to a new generation. This loss of familiarity may be regrettable, but it is a fact. I do not think there is a deliberate effort to be exclusive. Younger priest just do not know it and do not use it. If they did, their pronunciation would be flat and quite unbeautiful as it was even in my youth as most priest and bishops butchered it. It was always refreshing to hear Mass when an Italian priest visited.

Oh, no--there was and is a festering hostility to Latin that goes back to the years immediately after the promulgation of the Novus Ordo. For a certain type of post-conciliarist, Latin is a visible manifestation of all that is antiquarian, irrelevant and repressive about the pre-conciliar Church. Combine that with the Latin disposition for rigid uniformity, and you have a recipe for a pogrom to eliminate all traces of Latin from the Mass. Of course, when the people know Latin, the might also be able to recognize when the English translation is wandering off the reservation.


My kids, both of whom learned Ciceronian Latin at school, tended to snigger whenever they heard the vulgar pronunciation of ecclesiastical Latin.

I was going to say "lunatic fringe" until I realised that a fringe is only the smallest part of a whole and so inapplicable in this case. However, the sensible part of RC traditionalists recognise the benefits of the vernacular but may well still hold an exclusivist line on Latin. I tend toward this myself simply because the ones living today who would control or influence the direction of a new liturgical change are not trustworthy. Many of them are barely Christian. While the benefits of the vernacular are many, I figure Roman Catholicism can wait for these benefits while the old guard dies off.

I have never studied any Slavic languages formally, nor did I grow up in a household where any were in use among the elders (other than occasional mention of an old saying in mother tongue by my grandmother, always with a quick and witty translation).

Yet, I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that I feel as if I enjoy "a fond familiarity" with Church Slavonic nonetheless, given its respectful and appropriate occasional use in our parishes.

To Stuart's point, the existence of a "middle ground" likely contributed to this level of appreciation. Indeed, many of our non-cradle Byzantines, as well as our teenagers, tend to be the ones who are most vocal in their support of this occasional use and exposure.

Thanks, Stuart, for your explanation(s).

JDC, why would you say those who would influence a liturgical change aren't trustworthy, as they're barely Christian? It then begs to question, to whom are you referring?

Having been schooled in both, I would much prefer to hear Archbishop Luigi Raimondi, of blessed memory, say "Pax Vobis!", than some German-trained classicist tell me that Caesar cried, "Wayny, weedy, winky!" No way.

Of course, you'll find certain circles of hostility towards the use of Latin, but in my neck of the woods I do not feel it. At the local Roman Catholic parish where I go when not with the GO in Saco or Portland you'll hear a lusty "Tantum ergo..." and devout "Adoro Te..." at Communion from time to time, and the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei are often chanted using the simple and child-like, old Requiem tone.

And that is wonderful, and perhaps it is because an older generation has passed on it's "fond familiarity" and enthusiasm for the beauty and cadences of these liturgical languages to a younger generation. Pity the west has lost this, but I do not feel it is widely recoverable; which, though regretable, is all right since I feel comprehensibility is a priority.

Curious Joe, I'm not ethnic Slavic, or Ukrainian, myself. But, your mention of feeling at home with the well-timed use of the ethnic vernacular rings true. Father Frank at St. Irene's in Portland told a parishioner, and me, one of the bishops wanted to discuss taking out Ukrainian, from the Liturgy. I felt disgusted, when I heard it. I responded, saying, "I like the Ukrainian!"

RC Bishops.

Thanks, for clarifying. Do you think it's the Pope's job to reign in on lack of Christianity in the motive(s)/action(s) of those in question? I'm only thinking in terms of, "accountability starts at the top."

That's a complex question. RC bishops are appointed by the pope. A lot of them see themselves as middle managers of the "real boss", the pope. So on the one hand, yes, he's the one charged with getting them in line and nobody else is really in a position to do it. On the other hand, the impossibility one man doing all that the pope has now to do is part of the problem and maybe how we got into this mess in the first place.

So, I don't know the answer to your question.

No worries, but you did bring up some extending points of discussion, if we really wanted to discuss further: the crux of matters pertaining to this mess; and how we as the congregation can do, if anything, to have voices heard. Then again, as previously noted in this thread, it seems as though the new generation may not have interest in "restoring things to their proper order."

I don't think there's much that Byzantine Christians can or should do about it.

I'm not especially worried about having my voice heard. It's why I gave up on RCism and attend a UGCC parish. I can pray, and the liturgy's not goofy.

Agreed.