Even with the older translation, languages like Latin*, Italian, or Spanish, because of more vowel endings, fewer silent letters, and easier pronunciations, are easier to chant or sing than English. This has been known among linguists for a long time.
It took over 40 years to get a fully approved translation for the OF so I would say it’s harder than you think.
And there’s no guarantee the translations won’t change again. I use the plural because there are hundreds of languages and probably hundreds of thousands of possible translations. There’s already a lot of growing dissatisfaction with phrases like “consubstantial with,” for example, and I’ve heard rumors that the Mass will be further “simplified,” whatever that means. The vernacular opened the door so these types of changes were imminent.It took over 40 years to get a fully approved translation for the OF so I would say it’s harder than you think.
Why, have they found a better word that loses none of the meaning?
That’s pretty much what they did with Deacon John who now has been assigned to say the Gospel in Spanish at my local parish. It’s quite a struggle for him as it’s quite obvious he speaks and understands very little Spanish.
Confucius say: picture worth thousand words.That’s pretty much what they did with Deacon John who now has been assigned to say the Gospel in Spanish at my local parish. It’s quite a struggle for him as it’s quite obvious he speaks and understands very little Spanish.
But didn’t Cardinal Arinze say in that video that the requirements were that the priest must know good Latin in order to use the 1962 liturgical books? Otherwise it’s the normative OF, with which most are familiar with and which bishops favor, even if the priests, deacons, and others don’t understand the vernacular of that particular congregation.
By the way, don’t they show you pictures in those German manuals?
Again, if you’re only worried about the English, why not check out the Anglican Use Mass. If they don’t know the English behind the EF, who does?
Nothing wrong with that. The Mass does contain a lot of visuals.
But of course I was being facetious and meant picture books without words and not for children, of which I heartily approve, but picture books for adults who see this as a step forward. But then I doubt you have lost your wits, just being Catholic, finding a way to oppose my view, in good clean Catholic fun. One thing about Catholics, they have no shortage of confidence, even when they’re barking up the wrong tree. And, yes, I’m Catholic.
.Not so. To my mind, "Recieve, Holy Lord, God Almighty and Everlasting, this spotless and unblemished host, which I, Your unworthy servant, offer to you my living and true God, for my own countless sins,"etc., etc., or “Come, Thou Who makest holy and bless this sacrifice made ready for your name” beats “Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, through Your goodness we have this bread to offer,” etc., etc., all hollow. I like the noble austerity of the OF, but the prose of the EF is finer. The mass should have simply been pruned of any excesses that had accrued to it and repetitions, and then permitted to be offered in both the Latin and the vernacular. It would have save a lot of heartache and bitterness, possibly avoided the whole liturgical war.
I, too, like the prose of the EF. It would make a great Mass in the vernacular, IMHO. Still, there’s no need to can the Latin EF. It does seen most fitting for Masses celebrated in the Vatican, especially those Masses with international significance. As to only having the EF in Latin, I just don’t see the reasoning in placing distance between the priest and the faithful via a language barrier when it is not necessary. 
But that’s exactly what you’d be doing. The vernacular opened the door to translation wars, parish division, and countless other changes as well. Probably the most stabilizing feature of the 62 Missal is its language. There was a reason for that stipulation in using the '62 liturgical books, which btw is the most popular edition of the pre-Vatican II Mass.
That’s your fear. Yes, I think it would reduce it’s popularity, and rightly so. Most people would prefer a Mass that they can readily understand. To me your reasons for not having the EF in the vernacular ignore the spiritual benefits to the faithful, which to me is the most important aspect to be considered. It is basically just going back to what it was in essence before everything went to Latin, because now we have the technology to make it happen.
Who cares? If people want Mass in their own language, they readily have that. It seems to me extremely specious that lack of technology was the reason for a standard liturgical language. If anything, it is was an odd, unpredictable historical anomaly, a hiccup in pattern, that just as the world was “globalizing” itself, the Church decided to vernacularize its liturgy.
There was not the capacity to stay on top of all the different languages that would come into play, I imagine, and Latin seemed like a convenient way to ensure consistency and meaning. It’s still the best way to conserve meaning, sort of a master text, if you will. I see nothing profound about keeping the Mass in Latin. It was a language of one of the most corrupt and godless (or should I say godful, they had so many) empires that ever was. It’s not like it has any specialness to commend it other than its being dead, and so a good reason to use it to conserve meaning. I do not thing at all that it was an anomaly [the Mass in the vernacular]. If anything, I would say that Latin was the hiccup, which has served its purpose well. There is no doubt that many beautiful hymns and chants have been composed in Latin, and we use them frequently in our Novus Ordo in my parish (to the chagrin of many Catholics who hate Latin). I love Latin hymns and chants. I am also getting used to Simple English Propers in Gregorian chant. I believe that there can be equally beautiful hymns and chants in many different languages, but we have not gotten there yet. It’s not destroying the old, but adding to it. Will there never again be great composers of music and chant? Is the Church finished, or is it just beginning? I like to think it is just beginning and that a great new Church era is on its way. Anyway, I do love the English version of the EF prayers. Maybe if I were fluent in Latin, I would like the Latin prayers as well, but I only had three years of Latin.
But those spiritual benefits exist only on paper at the moment, if that much. Contrast that with the many centuries of a proven spiritual benefit. As for “technology” they had that in the early centuries and could have used the Romance languages if they wanted to. And they probably would have had more reason to since people did not have side-by-side missals to use back then. So what exactly was the attraction of the Latin Mass for eighteen some centuries and why do you want to kill it again?
The Church has grown to understand that it is good for the laity to have a more participatory role in the Mass. This eventually led to those side by side missals you mentioned. And in turn, this led to the Novus Ordo. It has God’s fingerprints on it. I believe God likes it more that people listen and understand and engage both their hearts and minds in worship than listen to words they cannot understand and which do not engage either their hearts and minds. One cannot throw out the councils one does not like anymore than the doctrines one does not like, Either this Church is led by the Spirit of God or the entire thing is false. It was no hiccup or small thing that the Church went wholesale to the vernacular. There is no chance that the EF in Latin will ever predominate again. It may make some gains, and that is good, but it will never again be the main language of the Mass. In that vein, it makes perfect sense that the beautiful prayers and the more sacrificial focus of the EF be translated th the vernacular and celebrated in the EF, perhaps with a mixture of Latin and English (vernacular) hymns and chants and certain Mass parts already known by the faithful, such as the Kyrie, Sanctus, etc.