Bilingual masses

[rosebudsal]

The Mass I usually attend is bilingual. Many of the responses and hymns we sing in all the masses locally are in Spanish as well. (So we don’t hear a lot of the music that it seems that so many people complain about in most NO Masses) There is a 400-year-old tradition of Spanish Catholicism where I live so and now there is a long-history of bilingualism. I can’t imagine attending Mass without any of the Hispanic influences. (I’d probably have a hard time living some place else-- because so much of what draws me to Catholicism is the cultural aspect of it here.)

We have also a large influx of new immigrants coming from Mexico and Latin America, so there is also a need for bi-lingual Masses and Spanish Mases.

 

[marci]

Bilingual masses are particularly difficult for children. When we have attended them in the past, my kids simply “zone out”.

I agree with the sentiment that if there is that great a necessity, than there should be two masses offered, one in english and one in the other language.

 

[pnewton]

I find it futile to engage in the “what ifs”. Shoulda, coulda woulda are irrelevant. We have an issue to deal with this day. We may learn from past mistakes, but must focus on the issue, not the blame. The Catholic Church is not the government. It is not responsible for addressing immigration reform. What it is responsible for is delivery of the sacriments to the faithful Catholic. I have even heard that the Church ministers to convicts in prisons. This is not taken as support for their crime, so I find the beef against Spanish Masses empty, selfish and hypocritical.

Yes, it is the right thing to do to make everyone well aware of what language the Mass is in public and well known so that those who have a problem with it can seek a Mass to their liking. They, too, should be ministered to. But we must remember that while individuals may be respecters of persons, the Church must not. It must reach out as much to the stranger and even the criminal as it does to the professional or business man.

BTW - we also offer ESL courses.

 

[rosebudsal]

BTW - we also offer ESL courses.

So does our Archdiocese. I am just so used to the multiculturalism of where I live that I just expect it to be the norm, but I know that’s really naive. It’s different everywhere. I think it’s important that the church reach out to everyone, but it’s a touchy subject upon which I think it’s best to agree to disagree sometimes.

It’s surprises me that when our priest, who is just a few years older than me, I remember him from high school, shifts from Spanish to English, I barely notice it. I didn’t grow up speaking Spanish and don’t speak fluently, but he does it so well that I follow and totally understand him. He repeats the highlights of his homily in Spanish and does much of the consecration in Spanish. He sings it and it just is so lovely to hear.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Rand:

The extent of the use of the vernacular in the Mass was allowed by Pope Paul VI to be determined by each national bishops’ conference. The conferences’ decisions had to be ratified by the Holy See. Thus, the all-vernaular Mass exists because the Holy See permits it to exist. So “should” really is a subjective term (one is free to believe it or not), given that the amount of vernacular that is used is permitted by the competant authority.

Regards,
JKirk

I don’t want to argue the vernacular with you, JKirk, but I do want to encourage you to ground your criticism more deeply. You’re right in saying that Vatican permission for all-vernacular liturgies weighs in as evidence in their favor, but the way you’ve structured your post seems a bit too dismissive of the arguments in favor of Latin in the liturgy. That is, I don’t think we should dismiss debate over the wisdom of all-vernacular liturgy by invoking a legally positivistic principle that “We are free to agree or disagree with any individual’s arguments on the matter so we’ll just close the argument by pointing to what the law permits.” It’s a juridical solution but it doesn’t say anything about whether the law itself is good. One can easily find magisterial arguments for Latin liturgy, even from the current pope who, while allowing for all-vernacular Mass has expressed the idea that liturgies with different language groups should use Latin.

Let’s look at things another way. Let’s flip the coin: All-Latin liturgies are also allowed (and if on weekdays they needn’t have a homily, and ergo not a single vernacular word). Since I know you treasure vernacular liturgy, how would you respond if I said you shouldn’t get to argue your case for the vernacular because we can see that the law allows us not to use it?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I don’t want to argue the vernacular with you, JKirk, but I do want to encourage you to ground your criticism more deeply. You’re right in saying that Vatican permission for all-vernacular liturgies weighs in as evidence in their favor, but the way you’ve structured your post seems a bit too dismissive of the arguments in favor of Latin in the liturgy. That is, I don’t think we should dismiss debate over the wisdom of all-vernacular liturgy by invoking a legally positivistic principle that “We are free to agree or disagree with any individual’s arguments on the matter so we’ll just close the argument by pointing to what the law permits.” It’s a juridical solution but it doesn’t say anything about whether the law itself is good. One can easily find magisterial arguments for Latin liturgy, even from the current pope who, while allowing for all-vernacular Mass has expressed the idea that liturgies with different language groups should use Latin.

Let’s look at things another way. Let’s flip the coin: All-Latin liturgies are also allowed (and if on weekdays they needn’t have a homily, and ergo not a single vernacular word). Since I know you treasure vernacular liturgy, how would you respond if I said you shouldn’t get to argue your case for the vernacular because we can see that the law allows us not to use it?

This is the OP’s original post, Andreas:

“A reminder to those who always argue against Latin in the Mass. Vatican II says that LATIN IS SUPPOSED TO BE USED in the Mass. The council and subsequent popes and their writings are blindingly clear on that point. Latin is the official language of the Latin Rite of the Church and it should be used. Also, in the pope’s recent document on the Eucharist, he says that when there is a large international gathering at Mass (like one where there is many Spanish and English speakers), Latin should be used. That is what the Church says…and what the Church says is completely ignored by 90% of American Catholics who only want their all-vernacular Mass all the time.”

I responded the way I did because it ***sounds ***as if Rand (whose posts I by and large enjoy reading, ie, he seems a reasonable person) is saying that it is wrong to want an all-vernacular Mass all the time. I realize what the Council said, but the pope is not bound by a council’s directive on a matter of discipline, is he? That’s why I pointed out that the all-vernacular mass exists because the Holy See permitted and permits it to exist. If we want an all-vernacular Mass, we’re not committing a sin nor are we asking for anything we don’t already have. I see the sense of what Pope Benedict has said about multi-language groups at Mass, but I’ve heard the arguments over and over about the supposed benefits of Latin in even the typical daily parish worship and I still don’t buy the supposed benefits: It’s a dead langauge, thus unchanging (but it still has to be translated into the vernacular so the people can follow in their missal), it’s unifying (I don’t see how, unless we’re all one in not understanding the Mass), it’s sacred (not ontologically), etc. etc. The argument has been going on for a long time, but it’s rather moot, inasmuch as we have the OF in the vernacular and the EF in the Latin (one day, we may have the EF in both Latin and the vernacular, I for one hope so).

 

[pnewton]

FYI - We have tried starting incorporating some of the Latin in our bilingual Mass. So far we have met with no success. We can not even get more than a dozen or so among hundreds to say the Pater Noster yet. We will continue, but it will be a process of years for each part. We are only introducing one part at a time to minimize disruption.

 

[benedictgal]

This is the OP’s original post, Andreas:

“A reminder to those who always argue against Latin in the Mass. Vatican II says that LATIN IS SUPPOSED TO BE USED in the Mass. The council and subsequent popes and their writings are blindingly clear on that point. Latin is the official language of the Latin Rite of the Church and it should be used. Also, in the pope’s recent document on the Eucharist, he says that when there is a large international gathering at Mass (like one where there is many Spanish and English speakers), Latin should be used. That is what the Church says…and what the Church says is completely ignored by 90% of American Catholics who only want their all-vernacular Mass all the time.”

I responded the way I did because it ***sounds ***as if Rand (whose posts I by and large enjoy reading, ie, he seems a reasonable person) is saying that it is wrong to want an all-vernacular Mass all the time. I realize what the Council said, but the pope is not bound by a council’s directive on a matter of discipline, is he? That’s why I pointed out that the all-vernacular mass exists because the Holy See permitted and permits it to exist. If we want an all-vernacular Mass, we’re not committing a sin nor are we asking for anything we don’t already have. I see the sense of what Pope Benedict has said about multi-language groups at Mass, but I’ve heard the arguments over and over about the supposed benefits of Latin in even the typical daily parish worship and I still don’t buy the supposed benefits: It’s a dead langauge, thus unchanging (but it still has to be translated into the vernacular so the people can follow in their missal), it’s unifying (I don’t see how, unless we’re all one in not understanding the Mass), it’s sacred (not ontologically), etc. etc. The argument has been going on for a long time, but it’s rather moot, inasmuch as we have the OF in the vernacular and the EF in the Latin (one day, we may have the EF in both Latin and the vernacular, I for one hope so).

This is precisely why we need to have Latin in the Mass. Because it is a “dead” language, it does not run the risk of bad translations, like the ones we are experiencing with the present Roman Missal and the Lectionary. You can’t tool around with Latin.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This is precisely why we need to have Latin in the Mass. Because it is a “dead” language, it does not run the risk of bad translations, like the ones we are experiencing with the present Roman Missal and the Lectionary. You can’t tool around with Latin.

What about the translation in the Missal?

 

[benedictgal]

What about the translation in the Missal?

That red herring is currently being fixed right now. The current translations are somewhat defective and the Congregation for Divivine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments addressed thsi problem and is asking that ICEL work under the confines of Liturgicam Authenticam.

Now, having said that, the Spanish Roman MIssal does not seem to have these deficiencies, as the translations are quite faithful to the Latin. For example, they retain the beautiful prayer of the centurion (after the Agnus Dei) “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” The English translation looses the beauty and the actual scriptural reference: “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”