Why Latin endures in the Church

Through Latin we are able to remain in touch with the vast heritage of the Church throughout the ages

Archbishop Cordileone celebrating Extraordinary Form Mass in Latin at Brompton Oratory.

Existing in some form since several hundred years before Christ, the Latin language seems like an unlikely subject to still be generating brand new research, especially among young scholars.

Nevertheless, the theme this year of the Vatican’s humanities-themed contest, the Prize of the Pontifical Academies, is all about Latin. And the final winner – awarded 20,000 euros (more than $21,400) – will be chosen by Pope Francis.

So why does the Catholic Church care so much about promoting the Latin language? For quite a few reasons it turns out.

“In the Vatican some of the more important documents issued by the Pope and the Holy See are officially written in Latin,” Fr. Roberto Spataro, secretary of the Pontifical Academy for Latin, told CNA. The Church’s standard version of the Bible, called the Vulgate, is also in Latin.

Apart from this very practical reason, he said, through Latin we are also able to be in touch with the vast heritage of the Church throughout the ages and “discover that this very language has long been the medium of dialogue between faith and reason.”

The 2017 Prize of the Pontifical Academies is sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Culture and the Pontifical Academy for Latin, or Pontificia Acadamia Latinitatis, which was founded by Benedict XVI in 2012 through the motu proprio Latina Lingua.

“Pope Benedict … wanted to inspire the universal Church lest it forget Latin is the key of an immense treasure of wisdom and knowledge,” Fr. Spataro said.

This is the Church’s most recent document affirming the importance of the study and preservation of Latin, but by no means is it the only one.

In 1962, St. John XXIII issued the apostolic constitution Veterum Sapientia, in which he “solemnly stated” that Latin has three distinctive characteristics making this ancient language the “rightful language for the Roman Catholic Church,” Fr. Spataro said.

Just as the Church is by nature ‘catholic’, or ‘universal,’ the Latin language is also international, not belonging to one country or place; and because it is no longer a living language, it is also immutable.

This “makes it perfect for dogmatic and liturgical assessments as such intellectual activity requires a lucid language that leaves no ambiguity in expression,” he explained.

And finally, “it is beautiful and elegant, and the Church is always a lover of arts and culture.”

Organized every year by the Pontifical Council for Culture, the 2017 Prize of the Pontifical Academies is on two themes: Methodological proposals for teaching Latin today, and the reception of ancient Christian Latin between the medieval and modern eras.

The first topic “is reserved to institutions (academies, schools, associations, foundations, research groups etc.) that are engaged in formative activity among the youth,” the Prize’s press release states.

The second is for scholars between the ages of 25 and 40 who have produced doctoral theses or publications on the theme in the last five years. The deadline for candidates and institutions to submit applications is May 12.

Fr. Spataro also pointed out that the number of groups who celebrate the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, or the Traditional Latin Mass, has seen continuous growth since Benedict XVI made it clear in 2007 that it had never been abrogated.

Full story at Catholic News Agency.



To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.


  1. I can attend any Traditional Latin Mass at any SSPX chapel anywhere in the world and I feel at home.

    • hosemonkey says:

      Amen! If there is so much “love” for Latin in the NO Church, why is there so much effort to stamp it out and why is there so little support for the True Mass?

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      You are therefore at home in a chapel that has a priest ordained against the wishes of the Roman Pontiff.

      • Ann Malley says:

        You do not know the wishes of the Roman Pontiff and cannot speak credibly as to what he desires.

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          The Roman Pontiff makes his wishes known plainly by approving or withholding approval for those ordinations. Don’t be naïve.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Educate yourself, YFC:

            Wish :
            a desire or hope for something to happen.
            “the union has reiterated its wish for an agreement”
            synonyms: desire, longing, yearning, inclination, urge, whim, craving, hunger

            Again, you have no true knowledge of the Pontiff’s wishes.

    • Dear Ron, as of today, the members of your beloved SSPX have no legal ministry in the Church. That may change soon, and if it does (i.e., if the Supreme Pontiff–that’s Francis for some of you folks living in dissent– were to accept the entirety of their ministry, not just the sacraments of reconciliation and matrimony) then I’ll be very happy for you and for the rest of the habitués of this blog because that would effectively end their and your disobedience and dissent. But in the meantime, if a conscientious and faithful Catholic were to go to an illegal and illegitimate liturgy of your beloved SSPX, it can be argued as a definite sign of disobedience and dissent. Beware people. Beware.

      • Dear jon, the Bishop in the diocese I live in promotes homosexuality, doesn’t believe the four gospels the movie the Passion was based on are historical documents, attends liturgical functions of heretical sects, and on, and on….until this atrocity is fixed, I will stick with the SSPX.

        • Dear Ron: If a faithful Catholic were faced with a scenario such as the one you allege concerning his bishop, the only proper response for such a Catholic is first to pray for his bishop, to offer penances for him, to offer mortifications for him, novenas even, and to love him even more. The IMPROPER response is for said Catholic to commit a sin by going to a disobedient and dissenting society such as your beloved SSPX. Saints are born for sticking with the Magisterium and the Church, in spite of disagreement, or even persecution. A saint is not born through disobedience. This is why I am not impressed by your beloved SSPX.

          • Dear jon, you are misinformed. The SSPX is neither disobedient nor dissenting. On the contrary, the SSPX is faithful to 2000 years of tradition and orthodoxy which cannot be said of the N.O. (By the way, I do pray for the conversion and salvation of the local Bishop because he is Catholic in name only. Plus, you can have your new church because I believe it is Catholic in name only.)

          • Dear Ron: You’re wrong. Your beloved SSPX is indeed disobedient and in dissent. THAT is why the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed in his Letter To Bishops dated March 10, 2009 stating that “until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.” Note that Benedict (known for his clarity and precision) made it clear that it is DOCTRINAL issues that is the reason for your beloved SSPX’s lack of legal status in the Church. What does that mean? They have departed from the “2,000 years of tradition and orthodoxy” of which the Magisterium (the…

          • Pope and the bishops united to him) is the only guardian. By continuing to disparage the Ordinary Form, you’re still deep in heresy. Lord have mercy on you.

          • Steve Seitz says:

            I think you’re confusing the SSPX with the FSSP. The FSSP is faithful to Christ and the Church.

            The SSPX, on the other hand, seems to prefer to be separated from the Holy See, which of course, is not very Catholic.

          • Ann Malley says:

            It is both imprudent and not very Catholic to speak precipitously about others, especially when making suppositions that fellow Catholics “prefer” to be separated from the Holy See.

            The SSPX is faithful to Christ and the Church as well, even if they are currently in a situation that is irregular.

          • Steve Seitz says:

            My comments about SSPX are based on my observation of SSPXers on this website. I get the distinct sense of glee of those who wish to go further into schism.

            Are you telling me that you haven’t observed this?

        • Disgusted with California Bishops says:

          That’s the Diocese of San Jose with P.J. McGrath. I’m quite familiar with that bastion of heresy and wickedness and the pastoral malpractice of its bishop.

          Jon, be assured that the Diocese of San Jose is every bit as replete with heresy and pastoral malpractice as Ron says.

          Furthermore, a Catholic fulfills his Sunday Mass obligation by attending Mass offered in any Catholic rite. The SSPX Masses are valid; therefore they fulfill the obligation. Canon law affirms that Catholics may in good conscience attend SSPX Masses instead of Masses offered under the jurisdiction of their local ordinary. They are not bad Catholics for doing so, as you allege.

          • Disgusted is WRONG! AGAIN! Just because a particular liturgy is “valid” and offered by a “validly” ordained Catholic priest doesn’t mean that a Catholic should attend it. There are men out there in the world who were validly ordained, yet no longer have lawful faculties–authorization–from their bishop or any other bishop to offer Mass, but yet still offer Masses (albeit in most cases “sine populo” which is Latin for “without the people” for you people only familiar with the vernacular). These men may be on leave of absence or have been dismissed from public ministry, or whatever. I and no self-respecting Catholic should go to such Masses. Same with your beloved SSPX. They may be validly ordained and their Masses valid,…

          • and even more “beautiful” and “reverent” than a Mass in the OF; but no responsible and obedient Catholic should attend, because their Masses–as beautiful as they may be–ARE ILLICIT and UNLAWFUL. NO WHERE in Canon does it say that a Catholic may assist at an illegal, unlawful liturgy. NO WHERE! Pope Benedict has reaffirmed that the ministry of your beloved SSPX is UNLAWFUL, ILLEGAL. A Catholic, concerned for the salvation of his soul, should not risk his eternal redemption by taking part in a liturgy deemed by the official Church as illegal. You have been warned.

          • Dear jon, once again you are confused. The doctrinal issues are with the Vatican not the SSPX. “The basis for the current problem in the Church can be summarized as a loss of the faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This loss is manifested in the teachings of the Second Vatican Council on religious liberty, ecumenism and collegiality.” († Bernard Fellay)

          • Dear Ron: It will do you good to also listen to the present Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on this issue. As recently as May 2016 Cardinal Mueller in reference to your beloved SSPX said in an interview “that if one wants to be fully Catholic, one must recognize the Pope and the Second Vatican Council.” Additionally Edward Pentin reported that Cardinal Müller has said he expects the Society of St. Pius X, which has always opposed the Second Vatican Council’s declarations on religious freedom and ecumenism, to “unreservedly recognize” freedom of religion as a human right, and an obligation to ecumenism. He expects a recognition of all the Council declarations that deal with these issues, according to the…

          • according to the interview, reported on the Austrian Catholic website, Kathpress, May 24. The problem is the disobedience of your beloved SSPX.

            Why would anyone have any problems with “religious freedom”? you might ask. Dear Ron, it’s not religious freedom per se that the beloved SSPX has problems with. It’s the apparent friendliness of Vatican II to Jews. And those at the top of the totem pole of your beloved SSPX are known to have anti-semitic sentiments. The core of this disobedient society is laden with the blackness of anti-semitism.

          • Ann Malley says:

            jon, the Society does recognize Vatican II and the Pope. The outstanding questions revolve around defining clearly what portions of Vatican II are binding doctrine. With regard to freedom of religion, there has always been free will. Obviously. That is not the matter at hand. There is no objection to true ecumenism.

          • AM: Concerning this latest post of yours, you should perhaps address your words not to me but to Ron and to Bishop Fellay himself, because what you are saying up there CONTRADICTS what Ron has quoted from Fellay, that “This loss is manifested in the teachings of the Second Vatican Council on religious liberty, ecumenism and collegiality.” So AM, what is it? Either that you are wrong, or that you are right and Fellay does not know the position of his own society.

          • Steve Seitz says:

            Dear Dusgusted,
            I can’t speak directly to the SSPX issue, but simply because a Mass is valid doesn’t mean that it’s licit and fulfills a person’s obligations under Canon Law. If that were true, I could use the East Orthodox Mass on a regular basis to fulfill my obligation. But such unrestricted usage is only allowed in rare cases.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Dear Steve

            I am glad to see you admit that you cannot speak directly to the SSPX issue. This is the proper attitude. Not the attempt to pretend that there is a schism when, in truth, there is only an irregular canonical status.

            Again, you purport erroneously that the Society is in schism. This is not the case and that is why your making a false comparison between the Society and the Eastern Orthodox is not helpful for the purposes of this discussion. Much as you perhaps wish it may be.

          • Ann,
            I’m very sorry, but you really need to improve your reading comprehension. I did not mention schism in the post to which you have responded. If you’re referring to another post for which you haven’t yet responded, please note that the SSPX is neither in full communion nor full schism. It’s in limbo. Therefore, it’s very difficult to characterize its current status. But it is true, based on many comments that I’ve read on Cal Catholic, that its members have a certain enthusiasm about moving in the direction of full schism.

          • This is misinformation from AMalley. The status of the beloved SSPX is not a mere “irregular canonical status.” Please do check Pope John Paul II’s “motu propio” entitled “Ecclesia Dei” from July 1988 where the Holy Father declares: “In itself, this act [Lefebvre’s ordination of four bishops] was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a SCHISMATIC ACT.”

          • Ann Malley says:

            Stever, there is no such thing as partial schism. That is where you err and presume too much. This is why you comparing the situation of the SSPX, to which you admittedly have not the qualifications to speak, to the Eastern Orthodox is no true comparison. Such a comparison, in truth, is misleading. Much like your adopting the term Limbo.

            What is true, Steve, is that you make observations based upon your own bias. First in pretending that there is such an animal as partial schism. Second in purporting that you, human as you are, can read into the minds of men to determine what they desire.

            Again, you may want to look to your own habit of overstating and misspeaking before dismissing the pushback you receive to a desire for schism. The…

          • Ann Malley says:

            current situation, as irregular and uncomfortable as may be, is one that must be borne by one and all until such time as clarity is provided by those in the position to clarify. You are not that person, Steve.

            Until that time, you may want to rethink your own penchant for zealous misrepresentation.

          • Ann Malley says:

            jon, once again you are precipitous in your beloved bias. An implication is not a declaration. Sorry. There is no schism.

            By their fruits, you shall know them. Judge with right judgment. The Society represents no schism. There is no heresy being preached by the Society. There is, in truth, an irregular canonical status which awaits a much-needed clarity from those in the position to give it. That is not you, jon. (Especially when you pretend that the rite of mass, NO or TLM, is the Sacrament of Our Lord’s Body and Blood.)

            Unless you, jon, wish to be castigated as an inveterate liar and calumniator of those working out of necessity to uphold the teachings of Holy Mother Church, especially during this unprecedented time of trial, you…

          • Steve Seitz says:

            This is a matter of simple logic. SSPX is not in full communion; therefore, SSPX is in schism. I was being charitable by using the term partial schism.

            But if you think I’m wrong, then you must admit that SSPX clergy are operating under a canonical suspension. But they were never suspended.

            Ann, you don’t know when to give up.

    • And why not the FSSP Latin Mass: https://www.fssp.org/en/messes.htm#USA ?

  2. I grew up with the Latin Mass in the 50’s and 60’s but do not care for it for a variety of personal reasons. However, there should be freedom in the Church and parishioners should have a choice of attending a celebration of the Mass in the vernacular or in Latin.

  3. Well I will say this: the English language was a every primitive language until the Romans improved it. Most, or all of the longer English words and some of the shorter ones, too, are directly from Latin with a slight change in spelling. It is the same, I suppose, with all the so-called Romance languages, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian. We English speaking owe that much to the Romans, whether we like it or not. Learn Latin and ones understanding of English improves immensely.

    • Ann Malley says:

      Learn Latin and understand that the subtleties of the vernacular disappear, the same subtleties that morph understanding over time.

      • Ann Malley, I am sure that is very true. It is somewhat the same with what is called Sacred English vs modern English.

        I recommend the article, “The Rise of English Catholicism” on the Catholic Ozarks website. If you want, please read it all and the link to the Catholic Register before you make any decisions about it. The author says the Sarum Rite was older than the 1962 Traditional Latin Mass, and it (the Sarum) was first said in Latin and then English.

        The same blogger wrote an article previously on the differences between Sacred English and the modern vernacular. It is also somewhere on his site.

        • Ann Malley says:

          Thank you for the recommendation, Anne!

          What we seem to have here is an older preservation of certain portions of Catholic rites. Long before the establishing of the Anglican Ordinariate, a friend of my MIL’s thought I would like the Anglican rite. The why is that it had preserved more of what was traditionally Catholic than the Novus Ordo.

          I use older texts to teach my online students (…English, Grammar, Catechism). Even after years of doing as much, I am still amazed at the subtle transformation of words and their actually meaning as compared to how they are understood. It provides a ready example to the students, reinforcing the need to remain alert.

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      It’s not about English or about the Romance languages. I was just in China, whose languages bear no relation to Latin at all. The Church is thriving there, and reverent masses in the vernacular are well attended, despite (or maybe because of) decades of oppression by the state. I saw it first hand Easter Sunday. There were so many people at Saint Ignatius Cathedral that they had to broadcast the mass downstairs and had to send EMHCs down to distribute communion to the attendees.

  4. Tom Byrne says:

    Anne T:
    When the Romans withdrew from Britain in 410 AD, there were no “English”, just Romanized Celts and Anglo-Saxon invaders, who then held maybe 10% of the country. The effects of Latin on the English language came from the Benedictine monks who arrived in 596 and later from the Normans and medieval French. Now about two-thirds of our English vocabulary is of Latin origin, but had nothing to do with the Roman Empire.

    • Well, Tom, I am sure you are mostly correct, except the monks got the Latin from the Romans. The language was not “English” back then, as you said, but the different tribal languages were probably mixed together along the way into one major one. English is called Indo European for certain reasons, also, that we need not go into on here. My English is not that great, nor is my Latin for sure, but I am ever learning.

  5. newguy40 says:

    Candidly, it’s more to do with the orthodoxy of the liturgy. On very rare occasions and wholly dependent on the celebrant, I’ve attended orthodox and reverent NO Mass in English. For the 1962 Missal TLM, I’ve only been blessed with excellent spiritual Mass. The point is that Latin or verncular doesn’t matter.

    Lex credendi Lex orandi.

    • The Novus Ordo cannot be orthodox because its genesis was an affront to orthodoxy. It’s been said a thousand times, but bizarre that so few seem bothered by it – The principle author of the Novus Ordo was one Archbishop Bugnini, later exiled to Iran by Paul VI when he was exposed as a Freemason. The NO in its design is infused with Masonic influence. Freemasonry is an occult religion of Kabbalistic Gnosticism. See: http://www.realnews247.com/altar_comparison_pictorial.htm

      • This is a heretical statement by Ralph. Denigrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Ordinary Form–a sacrament of the Church–is CONDEMNED by the Second Lateran Council. Calling the Mass as an “affront” to orthodoxy is heretical.

        Bugnini wasn’t “exiled” to Iran. He was appointed as the nuncio there, not a sign of exile, but an indication of confidence. Iran during the mid-1970’s was a very sensitive region of the world. This “rumor” that the late Bugnini was a freemason is peddled by among other writers, by Michael Davies, known for his ultra-traditionalist sentiments and support for the beloved SSPX.

        • Ann Malley says:

          The “form” of mass is not a Sacrament. Please, stop conflating issues. As to the rest, can you prove your claims, jon? How do you know the appointment wasn’t considered an exile? How do you explain your smearing of Michael Davies, known for his love of the Church and the faithful adherence to Faith and Morals?

          Latin endures in the Church and there are many who despite it. Same with the enduring nature of Catholic doctrine despite the sophistry.

          You may want to hold off on your animus.

          • AM: Do read your Catechism please. Article #1332 of the Catechism plainly teaches that the Sacrament is also called the “Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God’s will in their daily lives.” The entire celebration–the Mass–is called the Sacrament. I mean, folks, this is BASIC Catholicism 101.

            As for Bugnini, the position of those who demonize him is “prima facie” (for you folks who love the vernacular that’s Latin for “based on first impression”) SELF-CONTRADICTORY! A nuncio is a personal representative of the Supreme Pontiff to a sovereign state: a sign of trust and confidence, NOT…

          • exile. And to be appointed in 1976 to such a delicate and volatile part of the world as Iran which would see the Shah’s exile just 3 years later in 1979 was a sign of trust. Would the Holy Father Pope Paul VI have entrusted such an office to a known freemason? People, I think not! And this is supported by those who have researched–RESEARCHED–on Bungini’s allege freemason association and have found scant proof.

            As for Davies: AM, I “smeared” no one. Just read all about him in Wikipedia.

          • Ann Malley says:

            CCC 1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood.

            You’re confusing the celebration or rite with the actual Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood.

            If you’re confused, understand that an individual may receive the Holy Communion outside the rite of mass. One may also attend mass without receiving the “Sacrament” of Holy Communion. Understand, too, that your screed against Mr. Davies is just that, bits and pieces taken perhaps from “Wikipedia” to aid your beloved vendetta.

            Please stop. It’s unbecoming and working against the Church.

          • On the contrary AMalley: I will not stop proclaiming the truth. Catechism #1328-#1332 PLAINLY says that the Sacrament is also called the Holy Mass. I am not confused because I adhere and obey the Magisterium and the Catechism. And my point is proven by the texts cited above.

            As for Davies: it is well-known his support for your beloved SSPX and for Lefebvre. This is not smear, as you falsely accused. Again you have been proven wrong.

        • Critical thinking ability would never conflate the Mass with the sacrament of the Eucharist presented at it. Masses are presented in various sacrilegious forms every day of the week, and perhaps without invalidating the Sacrament presented. The Mass and the Eucharist are not synonymous. And being given a nuncio job is mutually exclusive of being exiled? I have a bridge for sale in Nebraska. There has been a long history of masonic infiltration in the Vatican. Pope Leo XIII spoke of it in his 1888 prayer to St. Michael the Archangel (long form). And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

          • Well, Ralph, sorry to say but your whole premise that we should “never conflate the Mass with the sacrament of the Eucharist” is contradicted by the Catechism #1332, which teaches that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is also called the Holy Mass. You and AM seem to be having the same problem with basic–BASIC–Catholicism. So funny.

          • Ann Malley says:

            1332 Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God’s will in their daily lives.

            Nowhere in CCC 1332 above is the mass called the same as the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

          • AHA! There AMalley is your error. You’re not reading the Catechism properly. You have to read from Catechism #1328 which says “The inexhaustible richness of this sacrament is expressed in the different names we give it… It is called….” And one of the names is the Holy Mass (#1332). I am so glad that I have enlightened you on your very erroneous thinking about a BASIC aspect of the Catholic faith.

          • Ann Malley says:

            jon, no. The mass is the mass. The Sacrament of Our Lord’s Body and Blood is called; the Eucharist, The Blessed Sacrament, The Real Presence, Holy Communion, etc. Not mass.

          • Well, AM, based on this latest post of yours the only conclusion one can make is that your understanding of the Sacrament of the Eucharist as it relates to the Holy Mass is not fully formed and is deficient, because it contradicts the clear teaching of the Catechism (1328-1332).

            FURTHERMORE, because it has been demonstrated that the Catechism clearly teaches that the Sacrament is also called the Holy Mass, denigration and disrespect for the Holy Mass in the Ordinary Form as expressed by Ralph (an by you arguably for you seem to support Ralph) are HERETICAL as condemned by the Second Lateran Council. Go to confession! Repent! Repent!

        • anonymous says:

          Educate yourself,Jon: Louis Bouyer, peritus and member of the Concilium of Vatican II, in his “Memoirs”(p. 229-230, “got the sack” are Bouyer’s specific words) states explicitly that Paul VI, in a singular act of punishment of Bugnini for his countless prevarications to the pontiff on his veiled and deceptive work on the liturgy and rites, exiled Bugnini to Iran.

          The fake narrative of the post-conciliar jons is like a thick cloud.

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        I am amazed that people say the most heretical things on CCD, things that go to the HEART of the catholic faith, yet they are allowed this forum to peddle their heresies.

        • Ann Malley says:

          What heresies? Please, by all means, enumerate them.

          • Dear Ann,
            Please help me out – When I go to the communion rail, does the priest place the Eucharist on my tongue, or does he place the Mass on my tongue?
            Thanks, as always,

          • Ann Malley says:

            Dearest Ralph,

            Hmmm. That’s a tough one.

            Let me consult Aquinas and get back to you. Meanwhile, what to tell those First Communicants?

            Best to you,

          • Dear Ralph: If I may say so respectfully, it will do you good to refer to the Catechism for your question, rather than to AMalley. The Catechism in articles 1328-1332 answers your question. It says that “The inexhaustible richness of this sacrament is expressed in the different names we give it. Each name evokes certain aspects of it.” Inexhaustible richness, dear Ralph and dear AM: in other words the Sacrament is a multifaceted Mystery; the Sacrament of our Lord’s Body and Blood is rich–RICH!–in its significance, meaning, and reality that it is referred to in MANY WAYS, one of which is as the Holy Mass! The entire Mass which envelopes and celebrates the Paschal Mystery–the Sacrifice of Our Lord–is also the Sacrament.

          • Disgusted with Catholic Bishops says:

            Each name evokes certain aspects of the Mass, which means the various names do not refer to the entire reality of the Mass. Such is the case with calling the Mass a Sacrament: that highlights the sacrament that is confected and ordinarily received during the Mass, namely the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but it doesn’t mean that the Mass is a Sacrament. To call the Mass a Sacrament is true by way of extension of the Sacrament to the liturgy in which the Sacrament is celebrated. To call the Mass a Sacrament, identifying it entirely with the Sacrament of the Eucharist is wrong. There are seven sacraments, and Mass isn’t one of them.

          • The trouble with liberals (among innumerable things) is that they refuse to be pinned down. “Reality” for them “is referred to in MANY WAYS,” in fact, the more cannabis, LSD and other mind altering substances, the better. Be that as it may, the fact is there are 7 sacraments, one of those is the Eucharist, and none of those is the Mass. (Look it up.) If I go to Mass, and I don’t receive the Eucharist, I have not received a sacrament. And If I am in a state of sin, I must not present myself for the sacrament, although I may go to Mass. Do we need to go back to 1st grade?

          • Ann Malley says:

            jon, to imply that the Blessed Sacrament is so rich that it can be referred to as something that it is not – namely as the rite of mass – is to err. Please do consult the Catechism but do so with proper skills in reading comprehension. Your misconstrual, given time, may even render you believing that the congregation is the Blessed Sacrament by virtue of being in attendance.

            Moving forward, however, at least for the purposes of benefitting your agenda, you may want to forestall any future bias. Your personal animus against certain groups is blinding you to the fullness of truth. Blinding you to the very richness of which you speak.

          • Ann, now that we’ve buried the calumny that people who view the TLM form as superior for theological reasons are heretics, how about other observations? Is it important to dispute that Bugnini was /was not exiled? Is arguing he was not exiled a distraction from the question of whether he was a Freemason? If one denies that Bugnini was a Freemason, doesn’t that amount to an admission that it would be very bad if it were true? Because a bad tree cannot produce good fruit, etc. But anyway don’t expect the quality of argumentation on this board against the TLM to rise much beyond junior high level.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Ralph, you have said it. The charge of masonry must still be, for some, an unacceptable smear. So while the push from the Left, or at least jon, is to defame Michael Davies for association with +Lefebvre – guilty only for doing what needs must, relying upon the Church to supply as is acceptable under canon law – we will continue to experience the hobbled rehabilitation of Bugnini. That and his banal on-the-spot creation.

          • AMalley is so WRONG here for several reasons. First, it is not a “smear” to say that Davies is associated with your beloved SSPX and Lefebvre. You clearly didn’t know Davies. He wouldn’t have considered it at all a “smear” to be identified with your beloved SSPX and its founder. The actual smear here is against Bugnini perpetrated by the likes of Davies and those who repeat his smear in blog posts such as AMalley’s and Ralph’s. How so? It has never been proven that the late Bugnini was a freemason. All indications is that he wasn’t. Until 1983 a Catholic found to be a freemason was automatically excommunicated. Such people would not be entrusted with high ecclesiastical office such as the office of papal nuncio to a…

          • volatile and pivotal part of the world like Iran during the mid-1970’s! Plus, Bugnini himself apparently wrote a letter to Pope Paul VI denying he was a freemason, according to several sources. So people, stop smearing the dead in order to denigrate a Sacrament of the Church. This is heretical! And SO WRONG! Shameful.

        • Dear readers: The posts of AMalley, Disgusted, and Ralph above are CONTRADICTED by the clear teaching of the Catechism articles 1328-1332, namely that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is also called the Holy Mass! You can read the Catechism for yourselves, be not misinformed by them. The Church is VERY CLEAR in spite of Disgusted’s, AMalley’s, and Ralph’s hilarious protestations!

          Folks, the implication here is very clear: to denigrate the Holy Mass in the Ordinary Form is a heretical act condemned by the Second Lateran Council which declares anathema those who condemn, belittle, denigrate the Sacrament!

          Now, in the spirit of this article on why Latin endures in the Church, and because the Devil hates Latin, (therefore this…

          • should send shivers down the spine of those who are beset by the evil of denigrating the Sacrament which is also called the Holy Mass in the Ordinary Form!) allow me to quote in beautiful Latin the pertinent Canon from the Second Lateran Council condemning this heresy: “Eos autem qui religiositatis speciem simulantes Domini Corporis et Sanguinis sacramentum..tamquam haereticos ab ecclesia dei pellimus et damnamus et per potestates exteras coerceri praecipimus. Defensores quoque ipsorum eiusdem damnationis vinculo innodamus.”

            Translation for those of you attached to the vernacular: “Those, moreover, who pretending a kind of piety condemn the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord…we drive as heretics from the Church of God…

          • and we both condemn and we command them to be restrained by the exterior powers. We bind their defenders also by the chain of this same condemnation.” Go to confession!

          • Linda Maria says:

            jon, if you ever walk into an SSPX church — genuflect! The True Blessed Sacrament is there— regardless of your big opinions on whether it is “valid!” The Blessed Sacrament will be in its CORRECT position, in the middle of the altar, at the front of the church! You can’t miss it! All SSPX churches are constructed according to correct, traditional church design– with the Blessed Sacrament in its proper position! No crazy, irreverent post- Vatican II “gimmicks,” denigrating the Blessed Sacrament to a lesser position, and “humanistically” exalting the worshipers!

          • Ann Malley says:

            The amazing depth of desperation to conflate the mass with the Blessed Sacrament is what sends shivers down my spine. No wonder the Church is in crisis.

          • AMalley is WRONG! AGAIN! Desperation is to be in the position of AMalley, Disgusted, and Ralph at this point. Why? Well, they have found themselves in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to Catechism 1328-1332. Folks, this is actually hilarious. Check-mate! They have no where to turn! I think it is appropriate at this point to demand proofs, citations, documentation from AMalley, Ralph, and Disgusted for their continued wrongful insistence that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not called the Mass (in direct contradiction of the Catechism). I have supplied adequate proof by citing Catechism 1328-1332 to demonstrate that denigrating the Holy Mass in the Ordinary Form is heretical for it is denigration of the Sacrament, because the Sacrament is…

          • also called the Holy Mass, according to Catechism 1328 and 1332. God’s truth, and the teachings of the Church, has been adequately defended here.

  6. Linda Maria says:

    Very good! We need respect for the traditional Classical education, in both public and Catholic parochial schools! Students used to have to take several years of Latin, Greek, and one other European foreign language, to graduate from high school! Future priests, doctors, lawyers, and scientists of many types, used to be required four years of Latin and Greek, in high school– prior to entering the seminary, or university, as well as medical or law school. Latin is a ” basic” for understanding all Romance languages, and is used in so many fields– religion, law, the biological sciences, medicine and pharmacy, ad the arts! Latin is still our Church’s official first language!

  7. California is very strong in reviving the Latin Mass. We are growing slowly but surely. In the Archdiocese of Los Angeles Every-Sunday masses are held at St Therèse in Alhambra (1 pm), St Victor’s West Hollywood (7 pm), St Anthony in El Segundo (1 pm), and Camarillo at St Mary Magdalen Chapel (10 am). There is one more at East LA but I forgot the name. Mnsgr. Gomez is a great improvement over Mahony.

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      Surely you know that West Hollywood is the gay capitol of Southern California! I guess gays are OK with you if they practice the TLM!

      • Ann Malley says:

        Where vice reigns grace abounds all the more. And, sorry, but homosexual sex is just one sin among many. Southern California is not that exclusive.

      • Bohemond says:

        Hopefully the presence of TLM in West Hollywood will purge the filth from that area…

  8. Latin is the language of the Church. I don’t know what our seminaries require, but the Presbyterians require a basic knowledge of Greek and Hebrew for seminarians learning the Bible. Lutherans at one time, and may still, require Greek and Latin for seminarians. If one is to really learn the faith, at the seminary level, they must know the languages in which much of church writings exists. That doesn’t mean, however, that the Mass must be in Latin, Greek, etc. English is fine as long as it is a good translation of the Latin and or Greek. I too grew up in the 40-50s when Mass was in Latin and we had to memorize all the prayers in Latin. In those days Latin was taught in most high schools, the better to learn English, etc.

    • Bob One, when Latin was taught in the public schools here in California, we had the top public schools in the nation, and the nation had the top public schools in the world, even in the poorer and immigrant areas.

    • “Italia est paeninsula. Paeninsula est longa. Paeninsula est pulchra.”

      I first learned what the English word “pulchritude” meant after reading that first page of classical Latin back in the 50’s. So did many others. You, Bob one, more than likely learned Church Latin which has a more accurate pronunciation, the other being more Germanic.

      • I made that last comment because I have heard that some bishops and some priests back then learned their Latin at public schools and had a more Germanic pronunciation.

        • Anne T— you are correct about the Germanic pronunciation routinely used in public schools. Always struck me as wacky. Can you imagine Romans pronouncing “provinciae” [the provinces] as
          “pro-WINKY-eye” rather than “pro-VEEN-chee-ay”????

  9. Disgusted with Catholic Bishops says:

    Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei, January 2003 affirmed that Catholics may fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending a SSPX Mass and may do so without sin. That is an authoritative interpretation of Canon Law.

    Since the publication of that document, the Holy See has affirmed and clarified that the SSPX is Catholic, meaning not in schism, but that they have no recognized canonical status in the Church. They are not separated from the Church; they are within the Church. Attending SSPX Masses does not automatically express a desire to separate from the Pope.

    • O Disgusted is WRONG! And yet AGAIN! Firstly, O Disgusted is merely peddling a half-truth here. His half-truth is his reference to a “January 2003 affirmation” by Ecclesia Dei that “Catholics may fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX Mass and may do so without sin.” WRONG! The whole truth is that according to the same “January 2003 affirmation” only in “the strict sense” can a Catholic fulfill his Sunday obligation with the beloved SSPX. Why, what is that ‘strict sense’ you ask? Read what Msgr. Camille Perl of Ecclesia Dei had written in an earlier letter in April 2002 which the “January 2003 affirmation” actually reiterates: “A celebration of Holy Mass should be done in communion with the Church and with…

      • the Pope, and with the bishop of the place. The celebration of the Mass should be done by a priest who is in union with the Church. Attendance at Masses celebrated by other priests is permitted ONLY WHERE ACCESS TO A MASS CELEBRATED BY A PRIEST IN UNION WITH THE CHURCH IS IMPOSSIBLE. Now, the priests of the FSSPX are not in union with the Church because of their adherence to the schism of Archbishop LeFebvre who provoked the schism by his ordination of some bishops contrary to the will of the Pope, who has called the act on 30 June 1988 as schismatic.”

        Get that people. The implication of Perl’s words is that going to a Mass offered by your beloved SSPX for your Sunday obligation when it is actually possible for you to go to a Mass…

      • in the OF or in the EF by a priest in union with Rome such as the beloved FSSP IS NOT ALLOWED!

  10. Romulus Augustus says:

    My friends yes even you Novus Ordonarians the Traditional Latin Mass can never be destroyed, keep your dancing girls, altar girls, lay lectors, hand holding, kiss of peace, guitars, drums, felt banners, dinner table, rock, mariachi, folk music, communion in the hand while standing, well you get it, its called the Novus Ordo and it will and is dying a slow death because it was “man made” by six Protestant ministers and a Free Mason – Hannibal Bugnini.

  11. Romulus Augustus says:

    The smear campaign against the S.S.P.X. is laughable, they have NEVER changed they have always been Roman Catholic, it is Rome who changed folks, hand holding, kiss of peace, altar girls, dancing girls, lay lectors, drums, guitars, felt banners, saying ALL religions are the same and MUSLIMS AND JEWS worship the same God, this is false and completely rejecting Jesus Christ God, Son of God and the Holy Ghost. Again the S.S.P.X. will in the end save Rome and Holy Mother Church from complete and utter destruction.

    • First, the only “smear” going on in these posts is against the late Bugnini, who has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a Freemason. No one has proven it, and it never will be I suspect because there’s a great likelihood that the allegation is wrong. This allegation was made popular by the SSPX-sympathizer and writer Michael Davies. Identifying Davies as an SSPX-sympathizer is not a “smear” (Davies most likely wouldn’t have minded being called an SSPX-sympathizer), but rather situates a possible motive behind his smear against Bugnini: to denigrate the achievements of the Second Vatican Council and the Mass of Paul VI in particular.

      As for…

      • your claim that the beloved SSPX “will in the end save Rome and the Church,” WOW, if we have to rely on a disobedient society to save us, we are DOOMED. However, in truth, it is Christ, the Bridegroom, Who will save, and has already saved, His Bride, the Church. Thanks be to God!

        • Bohemond says:

          ” the achievements of the Second Vatican Council and the Mass of Paul VI in particular” HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

          • Folks, that’s nervous laughter from Bohemond. When one with dreadful accuracy nails right on the head the position of the other side and expose them for who they truly are, a natural response is a nervous “HA HA HA.”

          • Linda Maria says:

            LOVE your post, Bohemond! That is exactly what parishioners did (including the children!) on the first Sunday, in April of 1969– that the Novus Ordo Missae was said, in our parish church— HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! They couldn’t believe it! Was this a Catholic Mass??? Oh, the brilliant “scholarship” that went into this new thing!! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA — ad nauseum… The Spanish Novus Ordo was not as bad, but no one liked it, either! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA— ad nauseum…

          • Nothing nervous about it all little man… so tell me Mr. know it all who am really??. Someone who recognizes the utter hollowing out of the Church in the West since the failure Vatican 2. You would defend the establishment Church if it introduced human sacrifice into the mass and consider it an achievement. Your arrogance on this site is pathetic like some kind of self appointed theologian who wouldn’t recognize the truth if it kicked you in the teeth. In the end your side of the Church will dissolve and the faithful will be left to pick up the rubble and rebuild, and clean up the disaster your side caused

        • Ann Malley says:

          God can use whatever vehicle “He” chooses, jon. Not your call. And, yes, “In truth, it is Christ, the Bridegroom, Who will save, and has already saved, His Bride, the Church.” That is why it is rather comical of you to bluster and fume about WOW and those whom “you” perceive as a disobedient band.

          Time to engage some Faith, jon, and let God be about His business while you mind yours.

      • And what sort of “proof” will satisfy you that any person has ever been a member of secret society?
        I submit none. I also submit one of 2 things is true: either (1) you yourself are a Freemason; or (2) you don’t know the first thing about it. With regard to (2), watching a television show on the topic doesn’t count.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Besides Louis Buoyer, eyewitness and liturgy peritus at V2, summoned by Paul VI himself to correct Bugnini’s liturgical abuses (in his “Memoirs”, pp.229-230, he himself documents that Paul VI fired Bugnini from the Consilium and banished Bugnini to Iran), it was Fr. Luigi Villa, theologian and expert, who researched and voluminous documented Bugnini’s active membership in the Italian Grand Masonic Lodge of the Orient, even obtaining from ex-Mason witnesses Abp. Bugnini’s secret Masonic name, “Buan”.

    Bugnini, Rembert Weakland (read his autobiography “Pilgrim..” where he speaks of his ‘closeness’ to Bugnini), and L. Gregory Baum all were actively promiscuous homoerotic crafters of the the Vatican II revolution, as…

    • Anonymous says:

      …now, the surviving two admit in their own autobiographies.

      • This is a hilarious post by Anonymous. Firstly, Bouyer never proved that Bugnini was a freemason, as Anonymous is saying up there. Secondly, Anonymous is saying that Bouyer was “summoned to correct Bugnini’s liturgical abuses.” This is roll-of-the-floor-laughing hilarious. So Anonymous, are you saying that the Ordinary Form that we have now is the “corrected” version, and that the folks here who habitually denounce the “novus ordo” have Louis Bouyer to thank for? Hilarious. Thirdly, Villa likewise never proved Bugnini’s masonic associations.

        So folks the bottom line is this: what the posthumous detractors of the late Bugnini will never be able to overcome in their almost manic desire to see this man thoroughly demonized…

      • are the facts. The facts are that the penalty for being a proven freemason during the lifetime of Bugnini is automatic excommunication; YET that Bugnini was not excommunicated; but that he was entrusted with an important nunciature (proving that if allegations of freemasonry were brought before the Pope, His Holiness DID NOT BELIEVE IT); fact that Bugnini didn’t consider his appointment to Iran as an “exile” but seemingly thrived in it: he made a study of Persia and eventually wrote “La Chiesa in Iran” in 1981 which was featured in the “Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies.” And in this book, his love for Iran and its people was evident that according to the Journal, “La Chiesa” can be used as a reference book on the subject…

      • Saying this not as a fan of Bugnini at all, I am coming to believe that this posthumous attempt to destroy the reputation of a man who gave his life in the service of the Church, who did everything that the Church asked him to do, who apparently only sought the reconciliation between the Protestants and the Church–this attempt is repugnant because his detractors are defaming this man (without conclusive proof) IN ORDER TO DENIGRATE THE SACRAMENT. Be under no illusion folks, it is not Bugnini, but the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Ordinary Form that is the real target of these proven heretics. May the Lord have mercy on your souls.

        • The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

          • Ann Malley says:

            …all the while attempting to pretend that the rite of Mass is Holy Communion ;^)

            I wonder if that’s the conflation necessary to pretend that active homosexuals have heretofore been prohibited from attending mass? By pretending that Holy Communion is the mass there’s all manner of confusion afoot. But that’s the beloved agenda.

          • Well, I don’t know, but it is definitely the absurd ruse employed to call heretics those serious Catholics who pursue critical analysis and comparison of the TLM and NO forms. In other words, we must not dare to look for the men behind the curtain, those revolutionaries who have infiltrated the Church, probably uninterrupted since Judas at the Last Supper, and that we instead should allow ourselves as lambs led to slaughter by men of corrupt heart and ruined intellect who “have raised the abominable throne of their impiety with the iniquitous hope that the shepherd may be stricken and the flock scattered abroad.” (Leo XIII, 1888)

  13. Fr. Z had a blog entry today reaffirming that attending Mass at a SSPX chapel does fulfill a Catholic’s Sunday obligation. He said that opinions to the contrary are silly.

    • Right. And he provided no substantiation did he not? Sorry Sawyer but supply a more substantial source—such as someone who PRESENTLY works in the Curia like the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, or someone who PRESENTLY works for Ecclesia Dei. I have provided a substantial source–namely Msgr. Perl who was working in Ecclesia Dei when he wrote the letter I cited. As much as I like reading Fr. Z, he is neither a member of the Magisterium nor PRESENTLY working in the Curia.

      • Ann Malley says:

        Much as you like to press your beloved bias and call it truth, you are not a member of the Curia either. Sorry, but far more substantial sources, accurate ones at that, assure the faithful that they can fulfill their Sunday mass obligation at a Society mass.

        You, jon, have cited a good many things but succeded in making a confused muddle of them. Chief of which was your wild hare notion that the rite of mass is the same thing as the Blessed Sacrament. If that were the case, jon, then merely attending mass without receiving Our Lord would be considered to be having received Holy Communion.

        This is not, nor has it ever been the case. Take a moment to retrench, friend, imbibing the fullness of truth in lieu of your beloved bias which…

        • Sacrament of the Eucharist is also Holy Communion [A is also C], therefore, all Holy Masses are Holy Communions” [all Bs are Cs]. This is a fallacy in reasoning. She has wrongly associated that all instances of attending Mass is tantamount to having received Holy Communion, which the Catechism nowhere teaches. People who commit this fallacy often make irrelevant associations and also appeal to the emotions, as is evident above in her post.

      • Bohemond says:

        The Curia Ha…worse than the Cosa Nostra….corrupt no wonder you defend them

      • Linda Maria says:

        Better humbly genuflect, jon— if you ever decide to walk into an SSPX church or chapel– and discuss your religious concerns, with one of their priests! Christ is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament— and it will be located right where it should be, in His honor– right in the center of the high altar, in front of the entire church! So that He Alone may be worshiped– NOT MAN, in the “humanistic nonsense,” of the post-Vatican II era– in which the Blessed Sacrament has often been forcefully removed from the main altar, and pushed off to some weird place, where you cannot find Him, when you enter a Catholic church!!

  14. anonymous says:

    The full description of Annibale Bugnini’s devious involvement in the New Mass and corruption of the rites is contained in V2 expert and eyewitness Louis Bouyer’s “Memoirs” (2014: Cerf; English version Angelico Press, 2015).

    Bouyer says Card. Lercaro, the titular head of the Consilium “was utterly incapable of resisting the mealy-mouthed scoundrel, Bugnini”, the latter a man Bouyer calls “as bereft of culture as he was of basic honesty.” (p. 219)

    Bugnini finally (Bouyer’s words) “got the sack from the Pope.” (July, 1975; p. 230) Bouyer: “But characteristically of Paul VI’s kindness veering on weakness in those last years, he consecrated [Bugnini] as bishop a month later—still only to send him as Nuncio to Khomeini!…

    • anonymous says:

      Later, when Bouyer had a private audience with Paul VI, Bouyer told Paul VI about the many Mass and liturgy “reforms” that Bouyer questioned Paul VI for supporting. Paul VI was dumbfounded, replying, “Can this be? He [Bugnini] told me himself you (the Consilium) were unanimous about this!” (p. 225)

      What happened to the liturgy at Vatican II? Bouyer sums it up this way: “..In fact, a few clever devils regularly pulled the strings behind the back of simple gulls who, after all that, imagine they’ve taken decisions others took for them, though under their responsibility.” (p. 230).

      • Right. Anonymous, if you’re using Bouyer to denigrate the Holy Mass in the Ordinary Form, it won’t work. The fact remains that Pope Paul VI approved the liturgy and so did the rest of the Magisterium, even after–ALLEGEDLY–being “dumbfounded.” If Bouyer is to be believed: why no “correction”? The truth is that the Mass of Paul VI was promulgated with full-knowledge of the Pope and the bishops.

        According to one traditionalist author who have slogged through the works of Bouyer: “I know that Bouyer got a reputation after the Council for having been some sort of crypto-trad because of “Decomposition” and “Liturgy and Architecture,” but his famous “Liturgical Piety” (1954) is filled with utter contempt for most periods…

        • in the history of the liturgy (medieval, Baroque, Guéranger’s 19th restoration) and with praise for the liturgical ideas of the Jansenists and the Anglican “Caroline Divines.” He hated Thomism (and the great anti-modernist Dominican Garrigou in particular), promoted the ecumenical eucharistic theology of the Lutheran Yngve Brillioth, and formulated the modernist/ecumenical “assembly” theology behind the New Mass. Bouyer’s “traditional” sounding remarks, I think, merely reflected his quirky personality. One admirer who wrote a short biographical sketch of Bouyer said “When he stepped up to the podium, you never knew WHAT he was going to say.”

          Bottom line folks: Don’t put all your eggs into the Bouyer basket.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.