A Critique of the Traditional Roman Canon

[Auntie_M]

One thing has bothered me for a long time about the theory that Latin was the only language that should be used.

In Acts 2:6 , The crowd of people that the Apostles were preaching to, “each heard them speaking in his own language”. If God, then, allowed the people to hear and understand in his own language (no matter what it was) then why is it so wrong to say mass in each area’s vernacular. Whether it is in Latin, Greek, Spanish, French,. or English… etc?

If it was ok for the Apostles to preach while God let all hearing to hear and understand in his own language, then you would think it would be ok for us to do that also.

This is straight out of the Catholic Bible. Can anyone comment of this?

 

[drforjc]

One thing has bothered me for a long time about the theory that Latin was the only language that should be used.

In Acts 2:6 , The crowd of people that the Apostles were preaching to, “each heard them speaking in his own language”. If God, then, allowed the people to hear and understand in his own language (no matter what it was) then why is it so wrong to say mass in each area’s vernacular. Whether it is in Latin, Greek, Spanish, French,. or English… etc?

If it was ok for the Apostles to preach while God let all hearing to hear and understand in his own language, then you would think it would be ok for us to do that also.

This is straight out of the Catholic Bible. Can anyone comment of this?

Preaching (which is the context of the verse you quote) has always been in the vernacular. Even in the EF the homily is given in the local tongue. Same with catechesis… done in the vernacular, not Latin.
A liturgical service, on the other hand, is not identical with either preaching or teaching, though it can sometimes contain elements of them, principally at the homily.
If the Church blessed and approved the use of a specific “liturgical language” (such as Latin) we can trust that She had Her reasons for doing so. Likewise, if She chooses to allow the vernacular once again we should grant the legitimacy of such a permission. Of course we may personally prefer one or the other, and even explain to others our reasons for our preference.

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

Preaching (which is the context of the verse you quote) has always been in the vernacular. Even in the EF the homily is given in the local tongue. Same with catechesis… done in the vernacular, not Latin.
A liturgical service, on the other hand, is not identical with either preaching or teaching, though it can sometimes contain elements of them, principally at the homily.
If the Church blessed and approved the use of a specific “liturgical language” (such as Latin) we can trust that She had Her reasons for doing so. Likewise, if She chooses to allow the vernacular once again we should grant the legitimacy of such a permission. Of course we may personally prefer one or the other, and even explain to others our reasons for our preference.

Great discussion. Thanks to all!