Ordo Praedicatorum wrote:
I'm not sure I implied that.
That was my understanding of your statement that the faithful's ability to make the appropriate responses in Latin represented appropriate participation in the Mass. There was no mention in your statement of them needing to understand what they were responding to, or what their responses actually meant. Conversely, I interpret both SC and the GIRM to mean that conscious participation requires a level of understanding of what is being said and what they are saying.
Excuse me if I misunderstand your objections to Latin and participation. My response here directed towards these two intertwined issues in the context of Holy Mass. If my objections do not apply to you then they certainly apply to other posters, I apologize in advance of any confusion on my part.
The problem here to assume that literal understanding word for word what is being said equates to full active participation during Holy Mass. This is simple a modern phenomenon brought about by the hijacking of the liturgical movement.
To put it another way, for 1500 years the Western Church has been using Latin in the Mass - and no, the earliest incidents were not vernacular but elevated vernacular which proceeds into the archaic and eventually into what we know as "liturgical language."
So one must try to argue against all of those saints, doctors, Popes who for centuries did not reject its usage or question it.
In fact the greatest Mystics
of the Church were born, raised, and died on Latin Masses – people who achieved ultimate intimacy with God. They didn't complain about “not understanding” things at Mass.
Secondly, I go Traditional Latin Mass and I know no Latin but I participate more
than I ever did at an English Mass. Why? Because a literal understanding of what is being said does not equate into 100% full activate participation.
In fact I would argue that a liturgical language enhances
participation through a number of factors such as..
1. The sense of the sacred.
2. A proper and fitting expression for the primary function of Mass in the worship of God through the principle focus of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The salvific act of Christ (His Incarnation, etc.) is a mystery – God is a mystery – a liturgical language expresses this mystery.
3. It brings you out of the ordinary into the otherworldiness; not using the “common marketplace language” in your worship of God.
4. The curving of pride by subjecting yourself and depending more on the priest and the fact that “my language” (i.e. English in our case) is not being used but the Church's language.
5. A liturgical language like Latin symbolically represents the unchangingness of God and reflects how doctrine and belief develop in the Church. It is suprahistorical as it connects us with the past; hence it indirectly helps to curve modern tendencies to throw out other Traditional practices and by extension may help in guarding against doctrinal error.
6. And of course uniformity aspects with Catholics across the world coupled with the protection of mistranslations.All
of this equates into communicating Catholic doctrine better, hence the faith is better safeguarded and reverence increases.
I think its great that they are using English chant insofar as it is better than what you usually hear - it's a step in the right direction - but I won't stand by as objections of the use of Latin in Holy Mass are leveled for the same reasons that neo-modernists in the 1940s-1970s used in their efforts to hijack the liturgical movement and force 100% vernacular liturgies down our throats.