Can the Latin mass speak to all?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PastorBonus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vames said:
And the text of the mass is not exactly pure poetry. “Ite, missa est”. “Dominus vobiscum. Et cum spiritu tuo. Sursum corda. Habemus ad Dominum. Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro. Dignum et iustum est.” Where is the untranslatable poetry here?
Click to expand...
You’re almost making my case. What 1st yr Latin student would translate Dominus vobiscum as “The Lord BE with you”, changing the theology of a simple phrase? Or render Sursum corda as “Lift up your hearts”? That took a little creativity, did it not? And if you can’t translate it without being creative, then it’s untranslatable in my book.

As far as poetry goes, there is meter, alliteration, rhyme, etc. There’s no way you can retain all of this any more than if you paraphrase a simple English poem. So I don’t follow your logic on poetry.
 
ProVobis said:
You’re almost making my case. What 1st yr Latin student would translate Dominus vobiscum as “The Lord BE with you”, changing the theology of a simple phrase? Or render Sursum corda as “Lift up your hearts”? That took a little creativity, did it not? And if you can’t translate it without being creative, then it’s untranslatable in my book.
Click to expand...
But any translation from any language implies creativity, because each language has its specific grammar and vocabulary. Even translating a single word, “Dominus”, implies creativity, because we have to choose from many English words pertaining to the same semantic sphere; the process of selection, according to the correct meaning of the original context and the spirit of the English language, leads us to choose “Lord”. Is this what you mean by creativity, which indicates untranslatability in your book? If so, then ANY word/phrase from any language is untranslatable, because you can’t translate anything without being creative. Just look at this:
translate.google.com/#la/en/dominus
translate.google.com/#en/fr/lord
translate.google.com/#de/es/herr
Does it mean that we can’t communicate correctly our ideas by translating them in other languages? Or that only one language is the legitimate one and all the rest are wrong, imperfect, unfit to communicate some high ideas?
ProVobis said:
As far as poetry goes, there is meter, alliteration, rhyme, etc. There’s no way you can retain all of this any more than if you paraphrase a simple English poem. So I don’t follow your logic on poetry.
Click to expand...
You used the example of Shakespeare to illustrate the idea of untranslatability, so that’s why I thought about his poetry first. But we don’t even need to think about poetry or Shakespeare’s plays. Let’s take your own post, where you said “untranslatable in my book”. To translate “in my book” in other languages needs paraphrasing. But I can assure you that, with a good translation, any reader who doesn’t speak English can understand what you meant.
 
vames said:
If so, then ANY word/phrase from any language is untranslatable, because you can’t translate anything without being creative.
Click to expand...
Precisely my point. Even synonyms in the English language, such as presume and assume, have subtle differences in meaning, although the average English speaker couldn’t tell you what they are. And in thirty years from now, they’ll no doubt mean something else, based on the amount of usage of each.
You used the example of Shakespeare to illustrate the idea of untranslatability, so that’s why I thought about his poetry first.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard some Shakespeare in Polish. Believe me, there’s no translation that will do it justice and make an Anglophone proud.
But we don’t even need to think about poetry or Shakespeare’s plays. Let’s take your own post, where you said “untranslatable in my book”. To translate “in my book” in other languages needs paraphrasing. But I can assure you that, with a good translation, any reader who doesn’t speak English can understand what you meant.
Click to expand...
Sure, you can translate all kinds of idioms like “kick the bucket” or “raining cats and dogs.” My step-brother, a professional court linguist, just translates all foreign profanity as GDI. Easy solution for the time being but really?

In the end, it’s easier just to learn a little Shakespearean English, even if you need a lot of footnotes to do it.
 
Dom_Desiderius said:
My answer is “no”. Latin came from a certain region of Europe and is connected most profoundly and distinctly with the societies immediately surrounding Italy.

Within other continents which have no direct historical or cultural connection to Europe it seems to quite inappropriate to enforce latin as the liturgical language.
Click to expand...
By this logic, English shouldn’t have been as widespread as it is unless you’re talking spreading barbarism all over the world. The Latin we use in the Mass (and in the Vulgate) is the Latin codified by Cicero and Christianized by the Church. Why wouldn’t we want to spread it?
 
ProVobis said:
By this logic, English shouldn’t have been as widespread as it is unless you’re talking spreading barbarism all over the world. The Latin we use in the Mass (and in the Vulgate) is the Latin codified by Cicero and Christianized by the Church. Why wouldn’t we want to spread it?
Click to expand...
Because, like butter left in the fridge overnight, it is now unspreadable.
 
robert7685 said:
it is partly correct to say vernacular can be included, but the Church has previously condemned, under pain of anathema, the idea of vernacular only.
Click to expand...
So continue to offer vernacular Masses for Catholics who prefer and get more out of the Mass when it is in the language of their tongue without any Latin added. Such as has been the case since Vat2 until Latin has begun more recently to be reintroduced. And offer Latin Masses for those of you who don’t want vernacular only. Problem solved.
 
CMatt25 said:
So continue to offer vernacular Masses for Catholics who prefer and get more out of the Mass when it is in the language of their tongue without any Latin added. Such as has been the case since Vat2 until Latin has begun more recently to be reintroduced. And offer Latin Masses for those of you who don’t want vernacular only. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
I usually don’t agree with you much, but in this case your right. 👍
 
CMatt25 said:
So continue to offer vernacular Masses for Catholics who prefer and get more out of the Mass when it is in the language of their tongue without any Latin added. Such as has been the case since Vat2 until Latin has begun more recently to be reintroduced. And offer Latin Masses for those of you who don’t want vernacular only. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on other things, but in this case the problem is only beginning when it takes over an hour to figure out that the Pope has just renounced the Papacy. Hope the Latinless mindset was worth it. :rolleyes:
 
ProVobis said:
I agree with you on other things, but in this case the problem is only beginning when it takes over an hour to figure out that the Pope has just renounced the Papacy. Hope the Latinless mindset was worth it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Well ProVobis, this is a strange day for me. I’ve got people agreeing and disagreeing with me all in just a matter of a couple of posts on a traditional Catholic thread. 😃
 
ProVobis said:
Precisely my point. Even synonyms in the English language, such as presume and assume, have subtle differences in meaning, although the average English speaker couldn’t tell you what they are. And in thirty years from now, they’ll no doubt mean something else, based on the amount of usage of each.
Click to expand...
Good, then what exactly is the problem with having masses in English, since you don’t deny that translation, as imperfect as it can be, makes possible for people from different cultures to communicate and understand each others?

If you say that Latin is superior because it’s something immutable, absolute, while English is unstable and evolving like all modern languages, then don’t forget that Latin words have evolved too and that the meaning of any Latin word in our minds is influenced by our whole linguistic and cultural experience. There’s no such thing as a word (in any language) with an unchangeable meaning, like 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of any epoch, context or culture.
We aren’t native speakers of Latin (so we learn it by the same process of creative translation) and our understanding of Latin words is different from the understanding of the Medieval generations who invented new words and gradually developed new meanings for the old pagan Latin. The simplest example is the very word for the Mass (missa). When we hear it, do we associate it with the act of dismissing catechumens? No; the most powerful in our minds is the idea of solemn celebration / Holy Eucharist, then maybe we associate it with some particular masses (the EF or masses by Mozart, Bach or Beethoven). Or when we hear about Satan’s pomps (pompa), does anyone think about the circus and theater of the pagans, like it was in the beginning?
 
CMatt25 said:
Well ProVobis, this is a strange day for me. I’ve got people agreeing and disagreeing with me all in just a matter of a couple of posts on a traditional Catholic thread. 😃
Click to expand...
And it’s not over… it’s my turn to agree with you 🙂
 
CMatt25 said:
So continue to offer vernacular Masses for Catholics who prefer and get more out of the Mass when it is in the language of their tongue without any Latin added. Such as has been the case since Vat2 until Latin has begun more recently to be reintroduced. And offer Latin Masses for those of you who don’t want vernacular only. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
But why offer vernacular only Masses when it has consistently been contrary to the Church’s wishes? Both the Coucil of Trent and Vatican II expressed that, though Vatican II was less harsh about about it. Last I checked, preference was not a pillar of the Church. They are Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium (which my point falls under).
 
vames said:
Good, then what exactly is the problem with having masses in English, since you don’t deny that translation, as imperfect as it can be, makes possible for people from different cultures to communicate and understand each others?
Click to expand...
Imperfect translations makes for imperfect communications.

Add to those imperfections, modern imperfections and mutations and we become more and more removed from the original. But if you feel you can’t do without words with which you are most familiar, allowing for an infinite amount of imperfections, then who am I to tell you otherwise? Good luck.
 
robert7685 said:
But why offer vernacular only Masses when it has consistently been contrary to the Church’s wishes? Both the Coucil of Trent and Vatican II expressed that, though Vatican II was less harsh about about it. Last I checked, preference was not a pillar of the Church. They are Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium (which my point falls under).
Click to expand...
Because priests, especially missionaries, have started to make good use of the provisions of Vatican II about adapting the Liturgy to the culture and traditions of peoples and saw that this is beneficial for the evangelization. An example: Ghana, home of the papabile Peter Turkson. As for the three pillars of the Church, the Sacred Scripture doesn’t provide any guidance re the Latin Mass and a true Latin tradition simply didn’t exist in many places where millions of Catholics live. So Vatican II encouraged the use of local languages in churches. Yes, this use did expand and sometimes other languages have more or less replaced Latin. I have seen the live streaming of several (very reverent) Masses from Fatima, Mexico City, Sao Paulo and I don’t remember hearing much Latin beyond some occasional “Oremus”. But neither I do remember any concrete example, a precedent where the Vatican has criticized a particular bishop specifically for allowing this to happen.
 
ProVobis said:
Imperfect translations makes for imperfect communications.

Add to those imperfections, modern imperfections and mutations and we become more and more removed from the original. But if you feel you can’t do without words with which you are most familiar, allowing for an infinite amount of imperfections, then who am I to tell you otherwise? Good luck.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but I have no reasons to complain; as I already said, I like Latin and I have always attended OF Masses with some Latin elements. It’s just that I don’t understand this radical idealization of Latin. It is the official language of the Roman (Western) Catholic Church, which is fine. But to say that all the local translations of the Mass are only chaotic imperfections compared to an immutable, perfect original is to say that Vatican II made room for second-hand Masses, unable to convey the fixed meaning of The Original Text. And what is The Original Text? This one? Or this? The ones from 1570, 1962, 1970? If translations of the Bible are allowed and promoted by the Church, how is any text of the Mass above the Bible, so that it has to be left untranslated? And how did you learn Latin if not through an imperfect, modern language?
 
vames said:
Because priests, especially missionaries, have started to make good use of the provisions of Vatican II about adapting the Liturgy to the culture and traditions of peoples and saw that this is beneficial for the evangelization. An example: Ghana, home of the papabile Peter Turkson. As for the three pillars of the Church, the Sacred Scripture doesn’t provide any guidance re the Latin Mass and a true Latin tradition simply didn’t exist in many places where millions of Catholics live. So Vatican II encouraged the use of local languages in churches. Yes, this use did expand and sometimes other languages have more or less replaced Latin. I have seen the live streaming of several (very reverent) Masses from Fatima, Mexico City, Sao Paulo and I don’t remember hearing much Latin beyond some occasional “Oremus”. But neither I do remember any concrete example, a precedent where the Vatican has criticized a particular bishop specifically for allowing this to happen.
Click to expand...
But before Vatican II didn’t ALL churches use Latin for their services?:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top