The Latin Mass and its appeal for young people

By the Middle Ages, vernacular languages began to dominate, and even those emerging from Latin, like the Romance languages.

Meanwhile, the Church realized that even larger groups of people, and they did not understand Greek, Latin, etc., which is why missionaries began to translate texts.

Later, translations began to dominate because of technologies involving print, with even the Church allowing for that by the 1580s.

Given that Pope Pius V was primarily concerned with standardizing the Mass and preventing the abuses that were already creeping into the Mass all over the place (there were supposedly a dozen variations of Mass being promulgated as being “the Roman Mass”), then it would have defeated his purpose to have a whole bunch of vernacular Masses floating around, all of which would need to be monitored, which would be difficult to do. Furthermore, in the TLM and similar Mass rites from the era, much of the Mass isn’t even heard by the congregation and there are very few responses made by them. The Mass was primarily prayed by the priest, and the responses and additions would come from server and, where available, choir (presumably educated in both Latin and the Mass). The job of the congregation was and is mostly to reverently witness.

Scripture read/ chanted in Latin during Mass could have been read in the vernacular at homily time and whether or not read in the vernacular was no doubt explained in the vernacular in the homily.

Obviously if Mass is changed, as it was for the OF, to be more of a participatory ritual then more of it needs to be in the vernacular so that the congregation will respond with comprehension.

The above to me are basic clear facts and not matters for any sort of debate. I do not wish to participate in the endless back-and-forth on here, these facts just seem obvious to me.

You are wise to stay out of the debate, it resolves nothing and I'm just about done with it myself, though I shall devote my energies, as long as I have life in me, to standing up for the Traditional Latin Mass whenever I can, without debating it with those who wish to defend the past 60 years of the Church and all that entails.  

My point here, if it was always so obvious that the faithful have to understand the Mass in its entirety and actively participate in it after the fashion of an acolyte --- I've been getting the "vibe" here lately that either the Church just naively thought everyone understood Latin all those centuries (something about needing to see statistics on precisely when that knowledge ceased to be), that the Holy Ghost certainly wouldn't have deprived the faithful of that understanding that is necessary to their holiness and spiritual growth (is it necessary?), or what is more reasonable, that the Church hierarchy just didn't think it was necessary for the faithful to understand (those dirty birds!) --- where was the Holy Ghost until Vatican II? 

Anyone?

When I am elected Pope, you're going to be on my speed dial.  Heck, I might even change Canon Law and make you a Cardinal.  So be ready.

Seriously, though... what you say, as happens so often, makes perfect sense.  The Church could have said something like "okay, we're rolling out Mass in the vernacular, and we're going to make some tweaks here and there to make it more 'user-friendly', and you know how the acolytes have done the back-and-forth thing, well, now you're all going to be able to do that --- but we also recognize that this isn't for everyone, that some people like it 'the old way', and there is a place for you, too, so we'll leave that intact, at least in certain places at certain times --- so while we encourage 'active participation' in the fashion of the earliest Christians, we recognize that there have developed various traditions, and it is all equally Catholic".  The Anglican communion has a wide spectrum of "low", "broad", and "high" Church, and nobody disrespects anyone else for preferring this or that.  And Protestants of all stripes basically seek out the type of worship that suits them best.

I have mused before that the Church might be willing to consider the TLM as a kind of "contemplative rite" for those of a quasi-monastic bent, those who are just naturally quiet and ethereal in their spirituality.  Some people are just more sedate and contemplative by nature, and not everyone wants to be in some kind of big communal event.  There are all different personality types.  And there are people on the autism spectrum who simply can't handle a lot of noise and interpersonal back-and-forth.  Their numbers are not insignificant.  

As things stand now, though, especially in the wake of TC, the Church is essentially saying "we were wrong for a thousand or more years".  And I don't think she wants to say that.

I'm a young man (19) and I can say I have a strong preference as far as the liturgy is concerned for 1) reverent Novus ordo Masses celebrated in Latin and / or ad Orientem; 2) Traditional Latin Masses; 3) Masses of the Byzantine Rite and other liturgical rites of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

When I became a practising Catholic at the age of 15, I was shocked by the difference between the liturgy as I read about it and watched online, and the liturgy as it was in the actual parishes I attended. For me, it led not so much to a crisis of faith, but a deep fear. Why was the liturgy I attended filled with so many abuses, when nobody in their right mind would want such a liturgy when they could attend one celebrated in accord with the rubrics? I simply could not comprehend it.

As for language - I support a gradual return to Latin as the language used in most Masses of the Latin Church. One idea is to have the Canon in Latin, in addition to the Credo, Gloria, Psalm, etc, and the rest in the vernacular. This is most in accord with the wishes of Vatican II, because it literally says that Latin is to preserved as the main language of the liturgy in the Latin Church.

At my parish, at the main Sunday Mass, we have the introit processional chant, the Gloria, the Gospel acclamation, the Psalm, the Credo, the Sanctus, the Pater noster, the Agnus dei, the communion chant, the post-communion hymn, and the exit processional in Latin. The Kyrie is, of course, in Greek. The rest of the Mass, including the Canon is in English.

I'd also like to add that Church Slavonic is almost exclusively used by the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches in the liturgy, except in the diaspora. One of the benefits of this language is that I understand Slavs find it easy to pick up most of the words used during the liturgy because although not mutually intelligible with most Slavic languages, it is easy to process after a period of time. Latin, of course, is much more distant unless you speak Italian, French, etc. Church Slavonic on the other hand is not very hard to understand if you know the liturgy as a Slav. Patriarch Pimen, in his final testament before his death in 1990, said that the Russians must always preserve Church Slavonic as the language of prayer, as the language of the liturgy. The Russian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Church seem reluctant to move away from Church Slavonic precisely because there is little need for it. The UOC does allow parishes in hold the liturgy in Ukrainian if two thirds of the parish vote for it, but I understand there are not many such parishes.