P
ProVobis
Guest
Just like Latin has grown with the OF in the vernacular? How’s that Jubilate Deo coming along?
Seems like Latin made a comeback about the time JPII gave the OK on the use of the 62 Missal.
- Status
Seems like Latin made a comeback about the time JPII gave the OK on the use of the 62 Missal.
B
Basilios
Guest
The problem that people don’t understand when it comes to traditionalists and the Mass (among many other things) is that in principle we believe that a semi-vernacular liturgy is absolutely 100% a-okay and fantastic. The Eastern Churches have been doing it for a long time, and continue to do it. But notice: I said semi-vernacular (for want of a better word) because the liturgy will always change the language in some way in order to drag it out of the profane and into the sacred. It won’t be a foreign language; perhaps calling it an elevated vernacular which is more poetic and other-worldly in it’s expression. Also notice that the Eastern Church’s when they have these semi-vernacular liturgies make a good job (at least sometimes) of doing a good translation. The Russian Orthodox Church in America have the Divine Liturgy in English, but it is a beautiful kind of english. Majestic if you will.
Where traditionalists have a problem is that this isn’t the tradition for the Latin Church. We’ve always maintained our Latin liturgy.
It may have something to do with history and geography, you see. The Copts in Alexandria spoke Coptic. The Greeks in New Rome spoke Greek. And so on. But it was different in the West. We had Europe, with all its tribes. The West had one Patriarch over many countries; something which the East didn’t have (simplifying it majorly here for the sake of clarity and brevity). So we inherited Latin. A language to unify all - the franks, the goths, the lombards, the celts, the picts, all of them.
But now, in a misguided and false archeoligism, we’ve actually gone backwards. We’ve divided the Latin Church. The Council didn’t call for it; the rubrics generally still assume Latin as the official language - but hey here we are anyway with hundreds of different languages. And not to mention the hundreds of different variations of the Rite you’re likely to see from parish to parish nevermind diocese to diocese!
Vernacular isn’t the problem. Throwing out our traditions is the problem. I have no objections to an English EF when, as VII said, it is pastorally necessary and done with prudence. But right now traddies are in a kind of defense mode because things have gone so far. We need to rediscover our traditions.
God Bless +
Where traditionalists have a problem is that this isn’t the tradition for the Latin Church. We’ve always maintained our Latin liturgy.
It may have something to do with history and geography, you see. The Copts in Alexandria spoke Coptic. The Greeks in New Rome spoke Greek. And so on. But it was different in the West. We had Europe, with all its tribes. The West had one Patriarch over many countries; something which the East didn’t have (simplifying it majorly here for the sake of clarity and brevity). So we inherited Latin. A language to unify all - the franks, the goths, the lombards, the celts, the picts, all of them.
But now, in a misguided and false archeoligism, we’ve actually gone backwards. We’ve divided the Latin Church. The Council didn’t call for it; the rubrics generally still assume Latin as the official language - but hey here we are anyway with hundreds of different languages. And not to mention the hundreds of different variations of the Rite you’re likely to see from parish to parish nevermind diocese to diocese!
Vernacular isn’t the problem. Throwing out our traditions is the problem. I have no objections to an English EF when, as VII said, it is pastorally necessary and done with prudence. But right now traddies are in a kind of defense mode because things have gone so far. We need to rediscover our traditions.
God Bless +
P
ProVobis
Guest
They do it right. And FWIW so does Islam with Arabic, Hinduism with Sanskrit, and Buddhism with Pali. I believe up until Vatican II, Protestantism was the only major religion which used all-vernacular in its worship.
P
ProVobis
Guest
It is when Hispanics won’t attend an English Mass and vice versa, for example. But you’ve already covered the divisiveness issue.
B
Basilios
Guest
I probably didn’t make it clear enough when I meant that in principle it isn’t the issue. But it is based on tradition - a tradition based on geography and historical context which carries on today in the Latin Church. Hence we have “Spanish Masses” and next door “Polish Masses” instead of just Latin Mass in a Roman parish.
W
Windmill
Guest
I can say that Bishop Gracida is a friend of the EF Mass, so I doubt he is some closet conspirator to flush away all EF Masses by vernacularizing them. In fact, he offered the first Pontifical EF Nuptial Mass since the close of Vatican II. I sang in the schola cantorum that assisted at that Mass:
youtube.com/watch?v=eJM-BRdbS3c
As far as Anglican Use Masses, I was a choir member at an Anglican Use parish for three years and I can say that it is a truly beautiful experience. If done well, it rivals an EF Low Mass. However, there’s something timeless about Latin that adds an intangible aura to the EF Mass. It reconnects you to centuries of saints before you like no other form can.
youtube.com/watch?v=eJM-BRdbS3c
As far as Anglican Use Masses, I was a choir member at an Anglican Use parish for three years and I can say that it is a truly beautiful experience. If done well, it rivals an EF Low Mass. However, there’s something timeless about Latin that adds an intangible aura to the EF Mass. It reconnects you to centuries of saints before you like no other form can.
J
jwinch2
Guest
By that argument, we should probably get rid of all of those Bibles and Catechisms which have been translated; and all of those Papal Encyclicals and Council Documents which have been translated as well.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Not a bad idea to retranslate some of them, or have several translations to look at. When you translate “colere” as worship, and Anglos end up having to worship Mary, I’d say there is a little problem with the translation, don’t you? Or do you take all translations as gospel truth?
I will say something good about the new English Mass translation, though. The process was a good exercise in analyzing the original Latin texts and forced many to at least look at the Latin. Perhaps they should do that more often.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Of course there can be problems with translations. I don’t think anyone would doubt that. However, to suggest that the solution is simply not to translate the Mass, makes me wonder why you would not apply the same standard to Sacred Scripture, the Catechism, The Church Fathers, etc.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Well, I didn’t mean to imply that either. My translation philosophy is slightly different from yours apparently. I seem to recall in my days of studying Latin, the instructor would give most of us credit for getting the meaning across, even if you needed to use multiple words in order to translate one word. You can get into heavy areas of ambiguity when you just use demonstatives (“this”) or pronouns or verbs. There’s a difference between explaining the Mass (as Trent encouraged) and coming up with a one-size-fits-all-translation. When I translated Polish to English in the dental labs, I had to come up with several “translations” in order to get the meaning across while trying to preserve the nuances. I got into less trouble when I did it that way. Point is why lock yourself in a translation when translations are far from being an exact science. The translations in your pre-Vatican II handmissals were just guides; if you like them, fine, but they were never intended to substitute for the Latin. That would have gone against Veterum Sapientia for one thing.
By the way, there are many Vatican documents which have gone untranslated by the Vatican. Including Summorum Pontificum itself. So I don’t see any evil done by requiring the 62 Missal to be said exactly the way it was promulgated. It’s perfect the way it is!
J
JustinMissouri
Guest
Pope Benedict XVI, the father of the new liturgical movement, obviously wanted the two forms of Mass to be mutually enriching, and in his vision it is my estimation that a vernacular (largely) 1962 Missal is probably what he wanted.
As one attached to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, it would deeply sadden me. Latin is not the mystery of the Mass, but it certainly aids our experience of the mystery.
People often tell me, “I don’t like the Latin Mass! I can’t understand it!”
To which I reply, “You’re not supposed to understand it!”
The more ordinary we make the Mass - in the language, the vestments, etc., - the more difficult it is to realize how sublime a sacrifice that was made.
J
john78
Guest
wait you didn’t know that CAF is slammed to the brim of Lay experts ?!
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
But you are not denying that even the Latin Vulgate can be misinterpreted, are you? There is no magic language. As I said before, Latin is a good language for the purpose of conserving whatever has been reduced to writing, but not necessarily the best language for communicating what has been conserved. For example, unless the Holy Spirit once again allows each to hear in his own native language, I don’t think it would be good policy for all homilies henceforth to be delivered only in Latin. Well, not for most of us anyway. You might like that, ProVobis.
Peace. :angel1:
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
This past Holy Thursday we sang the Missa Jubilate Deo Mass in Latin/Greek (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Mortem Tuam, Agnus Dei), Ubi Caritas (Chant), Ubi Caritas (Maurice Durufle) for the Offertory, Ave Verum Corpus, Pange Lingua, but the Introit and Communion prayer were simple English propers, and the Washing of the Feet was done in English.Just like Latin has grown with the OF in the vernacular? How’s that Jubilate Deo coming along?
Seems like Latin made a comeback about the time JPII gave the OK on the use of the 62 Missal.
J
jwinch2
Guest
But that is exactly that you did imply. You clearly stated that all translations are at best, educated guesses. If that is true, how can I trust the Catechism, or the Bible that I read? Why are we not better off having those only in Latin to protect ourselves from the errors inherent in translations?
P
ProVobis
Guest
You can trust the Baltimore Catechism as that was written in English.
P
ProVobis
Guest
The Greek had some problems in its translations from the Hebrew, I understand. Jerome probably had similar issues when he translated from the former Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. But I think the real problem was the handwritten copies of generations of monks. Trent protected the Clementine, which was a consolidated effort of all the available Latin copies. Had we had the Gutenberg press way back in Moses time, it would have been a different story going forward. Blame it more on handwriting errors and parchment, which couldn’t be sustained for more than a few centuries. Trent did what it could do to establish a baseline, if you will. And Gutenberg helped with spreading the established scriptures from that point on.
Maybe at Harvard, but I don’t think it will work in Catholic churches.
A
Aran_Houlihan
Guest
I was taking to a priest and he told me that with the new translation it would be easer to chant the mass in Latin than English. Latin is the official language of the Catholic church all, the sing in the Vatican sate is in lain. If the mass was said in Latin people from other countries who cant speak the language can follow the mass instead of thinking what point of the mass are they at
A
Aran_Houlihan
Guest
I was taking to a priest and he told me that with the new translation it would be easier to chant the mass in Latin than English. Latin is the official language of the Catholic church all, the sing in the Vatican sate is in lain. If the mass was said in Latin people from other countries who cant speak the language can follow the mass instead of thinking what point of the mass are they at
J
jwinch2
Guest
There are many wonderful and helpful resources which make it easy and practical to chant the Mass in the vernacular these days. In fact, every time I turn around, there seems to be another one coming out.
ccwatershed.org/vatican/
amazon.com/gp/product/0984865292/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0984865292&link_code=as3&tag=stblogsorg-20
amazon.com/Simple-English-Propers-Ordinary-Sundays/dp/1607437260/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365984333&sr=1-1&keywords=vatican+ii+hymnal
amazon.com/Simple-Choral-Gradual-Richard-Rice/dp/1607437252/ref=pd_sim_b_1
ccwatershed.org/purchase/Esguerra_Psalms/
Many of them even provide free online resources for parishes wishing to implement chant into their liturgy. There is virtually no excuse remaining, other than simple lack of desire, for not doing this.
- Status