Think again. If you were to question the people attending a TLM, you’d probably be astonished at the number of them who are converts. I kid you not.
If the language is so important than not having it in your language makes you almost unable to feel you’ve fulfilled your obligation, then it seems that language has become the primary thing of importance in Mass to you. The importance of Mass is that it’s the reenactment of Calvary and that there is a sacrifice taking place. That should be the focus. The use of the vernacular distracts from that as I can see by your comment.
Okay, I really don’t like the direction this discussion is going. Did you miss where I wrote that I KNOW what the Mass is? One poster has, what seems to me, tried to coerce my honest opinion by saying, ‘One-size-fits-all translations only fit into the Protestant playbook.’ Someone suggested, WATCH the priest.
Again, are we going to be able to evangelize anyone by inviting them to Mass and having them ask, ‘what was that about?’ to receive a response, I don’t know, but it was a reenactment of the sacrifice at Calvary. What do you say, ‘well what was the priest saying?’ Imagine if it was a Hispanic Mass, where I didn’t understand the liturgy of the word, or the homily.
Well, if that’s truly your way of thinking, you should have no problems with Latin. Yet, you’ve posted that you have problems with Latin…
So far no one has provided a ‘reasonable’ explanation of how it would be a benefit.
To be perfectly honest, since the vernacular is acceptable now, these type discussions remind me of, ‘everyone needs to dress a certain way, because that’s the way I dress and that has to be more respectful because I’m holier than those people who dress a different way.’ It’s a statement of personal choice for worship and in worship there is only ONE that can see what in everyone’s heart.
Yes. So why should we go back to being like those at the tower of Babel?
Because of Pentecost, it was the Holy Spirit who enabled men to speak to multitudes, who all heard in their native tongue. Was that a mistake?
The Church develops over time, in light of Tradition and she builds upon Tradition. Part of that was the use of the Latin language. Yes, it was the common language of the people, although there’s a difference between classical Latin and Ecclesiastical Latin. Observe:
eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2011/06/church-latin-was-never-everyday.html
Note that use of such a language prevents change from creeping into it. Latin doesn’t change, as it’s considered a dead language. The only change there is to it nowadays is that done by people who want to add new words to the language, like “microwave”. Obviously the Church has no need for that word in her liturgy, so it’s irrelevant. On the other hand, modern languages are constantly changing. Words change meaning and so on. Not to mention, translating from the original Latin texts to the vernacular was a cause for major errors as show by the need for a new translation of the Roman Missal. None of this would have been necessary were Latin just kept as the normal language.
I would not be Catholic today, if I had first attended Masses where I had no idea what was being said. The authoritative Church made the change that the vernacular was acceptable. Just as the title of this thread states, ‘Catholic laity doesn’t get to decide what form of Mass will be celebrated’, it is my understanding that Catholic laity do not get to decide what language the Mass is celebrated in, that’s for our authoritative Church to decide, through the apostolic men of authority.
As for using Aramaic, that was not the common language at the time and back then, yes, it did make sense to use a language that was pretty much universal to the known world. That language was Latin. Also note that while the Apostles had the gift of tongues, this didn’t transfer to everybody as can be seen today. Go over to China and see if that priest can talk Chinese and you can understand him in English!
Furthermore, are you aware that it is not just Traditional Catholicism (pre-Vatican II) that encourages the use of Latin? We’re still instructed that Latin is to be preserved in the use of the liturgy and that the congregations should be able to at least sing the Mass parts in Latin! So the Church has not abandoned Latin since Vatican II. We have just been made to believe that by so many people who either are ignorant of the Church teachings or intentionally wish to keep that information from us.
(Note: While Jesus did speak Aramaic, as did the Jews, their religious language was Hebrew. Just an interesting point.)
I don’t know of anyone today that can speak and all languages understand. My point was that through the Holy Spirit each individual was spoken to through their native tongue. Now there seems to be a push to go to a dead language taking away understanding from some people, no matter if it’s a majority or minority.
Here’s an ‘interesting point’. Scriptures were written in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. Do you think any word meanings changed through the translations putting it into different languages, including Latin?
So far, I haven’t seen a reasonable benefit listed. I will do what the wisdom of the Church directs, as I’m doing now.
) There is such a thing as body language or rubrics which should make it easier to understand. That’s why they’re a big part of Mass. You should be able to understand a Vietnamese Mass if you know your Mass and WATCH the priest, just as you would watch a basketball game without commentaries.
