English in a "traditional" Mass

[JMJ_coder]

By traditional Mass I mean one according to the rubics that were in effect for the entire Latin Church prior to the promulgation of the Mass of Pope Paul VI.

Would you be in favor of have a few places in a good English translation instead of Latin? I am thinking primarily of the Readings (instead of having them repeated in English as part of the homily).

Also, would you be in favor of most or all of the Mass to be in English (good translation), such as was the case of the “transitional” Mass in the late 1960’s?

 

[ProVobis]

By traditional Mass I mean one according to the rubics that were in effect for the entire Latin Church prior to the promulgation of the Mass of Pope Paul VI.

Would you be in favor of have a few places in a good English translation instead of Latin? I am thinking primarily of the Readings (instead of having them repeated in English as part of the homily).

Also, would you be in favor of most or all of the Mass to be in English (good translation), such as was the case of the “transitional” Mass in the late 1960’s?

There are some EFs being said that do use vernacular in the readings. I favor having BOTH Latin and the vernacular in the Mass. The Latin would be used as a standard, if you will, so that the vernacular doesn’t deviate too much. Without Latin as the standard, you have the mess that the current OF has in its translations and all.

 

[dixibehr]

Without Latin as the standard, you have the mess that the current OF has in its translations and all.<<

But Latin is the standard for the OF, as well. The typical edition from Rome IS in Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

Without Latin as the standard, you have the mess that the current OF has in its translations and all.<<

You’re right but how many know that?

They would know about it if more of the Latin were used in the OF Mass. Vatican II voted to keep Latin in the Mass.

 

[Famule]

You’re right but how many know that?

They would know about it if more of the Latin were used in the OF Mass. Vatican II voted to keep Latin in the Mass.

I would sure like to know how that fact got lost somewhere. The Vatican II documents are very blunt about it. The GIRM misquotes sacrosanctum concilium. I just don’t get how all of this happened.

 

[Cranch]

By traditional Mass I mean one according to the rubics that were in effect for the entire Latin Church prior to the promulgation of the Mass of Pope Paul VI.

Would you be in favor of have a few places in a good English translation instead of Latin? I am thinking primarily of the Readings (instead of having them repeated in English as part of the homily).

Also, would you be in favor of most or all of the Mass to be in English (good translation), such as was the case of the “transitional” Mass in the late 1960’s?

To answer your questions:

No and most assuredly no.

 

[daughteroftruth]

Would you be in favor of have a few places in a good English translation instead of Latin? I am thinking primarily of the Readings (instead of having them repeated in English as part of the homily).

Iffy, though not blasphemous (in my opinion).

Also, would you be in favor of most or all of the Mass to be in English (good translation), such as was the case of the “transitional” Mass in the late 1960’s?

Absolutely not, there’s no point. We are of the Church of Universality (Catholic) not the Church of Babel.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

Absolutely not, there’s no point. We are of the Church of Universality (Catholic) not the Church of Babel.

Actually, from the beginning the Church had many languages; the apostles most likely evangelized in the vernacular as well as Greek (Acts 2:4-8). In fact, when you look at the different Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches you can see that the Church was (and still is) a multicultural, multilanguage Church. Universality/Catholicity has nothing to do with uniformity/assimilation. Historically speaking, Latin became the language of the Church in the West because at the time it was the vernacular in the western part of the Roman Empire. The East continue to use Greek and their other vernacular languages. The same applies to other aspects of the Liturgy. Within the Catholic Church you have, in addition to the Roman/Latin Rite, the Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Chaldean/East Syrian, and Byzantine liturgical traditions. Through the Pastoral Provision, the Catholic Church has even adopted the Anglican use Liturgy. The bottom line is that Catholic means universal NOT Latin.

Would you be in favor of have a few places in a good English translation instead of Latin?

Also, would you be in favor of most or all of the Mass to be in English (good translation), such as was the case of the “transitional” Mass in the late 1960’s?

Absolutely! As long as the translation is done correctly and orthodoxy is followed, I believe other languages (and cultures) can enrich the Liturgy.

 

[SlaveofMary90]

In the Holy Father’s Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, he allowes the Epistle and Gospel to be read in the vernacular. Personally, I prefer the readings to be read in Latin first. Very few parishes where the Traditional Missal is used make use of this provision in Summorum Pontificum. Where it is used, I believe it is limited to Low Mass.

 

[daughteroftruth]

Actually, from the beginning the Church had many languages;

Why were there many languages? Scripture tells us of Babel…diversity of lanuage was a punishment from God.

If you note, the Apostles spoke in tongues…a gift the Lord allowed in the beginning so that all could understand. If all Catholics took the time to learn the basics of Latin, they could understand what they were being taught no matter where in the world they were. We could pray together and know what was being prayed, teach the Faith and, since we spoke the same language, understand. We could confess our sins to the priest (he’d know what we were confessing) and receive our absolution - penance.

the apostles most likely evangelized in the vernacular as well as Greek (Acts 2:4-8).

Sort of hard for the Church to be universal if we have diversity of language…not impossible, but *unnecessarily *difficult. It’s a visible sign of that visible unity Christ prayed for.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

Why were there many languages? Scripture tells us of Babel…diversity of lanuage was a punishment from God.

And not being able to have children was also consider a “punishment” from God in the Old Testament. How is that relevant to Christianity?

If you note, the Apostles spoke in tongues…a gift the Lord allowed in the beginning so that all could understand. If all Catholics took the time to learn the basics of Latin, they could understand what they were being taught no matter where in the world they were. We could pray together and know what was being prayed, teach the Faith and, since we spoke the same language, understand. We could confess our sins to the priest (he’d know what we were confessing) and receive our absolution - penance.

If we all needed to speak one language, why not Aramaic, the language of our Lord and the apostles? Why not Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament Scripture? Why not Greek, the language primarily used by the apostles in their missionary effort and in the New Testament Scripture? Why Latin, a language initially pagan? Why not Italian, the every-day language used in the Vatican? Why not English, the international language? Or Spanish, or French, or Portuguese…?

The Church grew. Just as an adult doesn’t talk like he did as a child, so the Church. Why? Universal understanding is likely what the Lord had in mind.

And how do you know that is what the Lord “had in mind”? The last few popes, to include the late John Paul II and the current Benedict XVI, obviously disagree with that statement. Besides, Latin itself evolved (e.g. Classical, Vulgar, etc.). Now we have the Romance languages, which originated from Latin. And as stated previously, Latin was never the official language of the whole Church, only the West. Among other languages, Greek was and still is used in the East.

Some priests also put Buddha near the Tabernacle - that doesn’t make it right.

Of course it does not make it right; it is also not licit. The vernacular language, on the other hand, is approved by the Church for use in the Liturgy.

Sort of hard for the Church to be universal if we have diversity of language…not impossible, but *unnecessarily *difficult. It’s a visible sign of that visible unity Christ prayed for.

If that was the case, one could argue for a language that was widely spoken throughout the world; Latin, obviously, is not. Some of our Eastern Catholic brethren could argue that Greek (although not Classical or Koine) is still spoken. But then again, not everyone speaks Greek.

Catholic, from the Greek (not Latin) καθολικός (katholikos), means universal, general, throughout the whole. It does not mean uniform, standardized, homogeneous, identical.

The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way

harms emphasis mine] its unity; rather it manifests it emphasis mine], for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain emphasis mine] its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place. (Orientalium Ecclesiarium 2)I think the Church is very clear about it; one does not have to be Latin to be Catholic…

 

[Cluny]

In some places, the Roman Rite was celebrated in Chinese before Vatican II.

And it was celebrated in Slavonic (in Glagolithic script) in some dioceses along the Adriatic for CENTURIES before Vatican II.

In other words, Latin was NOT always the universal and sole language of the Roman rite.

Furthermore, I don’t see how celebrating according to directives allowed by Summorum pontificum or any other instruction from the Holy See can be unfavorably likened to placing an idol above the Tabernacle: an event that happened, so far as I know, ONLY ONCE.

Pope St. Gregory the Great ordered the Mass to be celebrated in Latin in his diocese PRECISELY because it had become the vernacular!

There were traditionalist holdouts who didn’t like this innovation. They wanted Greek, and possibly Aramaic, to be retained.

For funsies, look up SSPI or Society of St. Pius I, on google.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually, from the beginning the Church had many languages; the apostles most likely evangelized in the vernacular as well as Greek (Acts 2:4-8). In fact, when you look at the different Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches you can see that the Church was (and still is) a multicultural, multilanguage Church. Universality/Catholicity has nothing to do with uniformity/assimilation. Historically speaking, Latin became the language of the Church in the West because at the time it was the vernacular in the western part of the Roman Empire. The East continue to use Greek and their other vernacular languages. The same applies to other aspects of the Liturgy. Within the Catholic Church you have, in addition to the Roman/Latin Rite, the Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Chaldean/East Syrian, and Byzantine liturgical traditions. Through the Pastoral Provision, the Catholic Church has even adopted the Anglican use Liturgy. The bottom line is that Catholic means universal NOT Latin.

Absolutely! As long as the translation is done correctly and orthodoxy is followed, I believe other languages (and cultures) can enrich the Liturgy.

Sure they can enrich it and while there are many vernaculars available, nevertheless, repeat, Vatican II voted to retain Latin in the liturgy. Do you know better than Vatican II?

 

[JuanCarlos]

I would be ok with an English Low Mass, with the caveat that the Canon and Offertory still be in Latin and silent.

High Mass should always be Latin though, due to the chants.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

Do you know better than Vatican II?

Of course not; I’m just a student of theology working on my master’s degree.

Sure they can enrich it and while there are many vernaculars available, nevertheless, repeat, Vatican II voted to retain Latin in the liturgy.

Did Vatican II “voted to retain Latin” as the ONLY language in the Liturgy? Please provide references and/or documentation.

As far as I know, Vatican II, through it’s Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium 36, stated the following:

1. Particular law remaining in force [note the term “particular law” as opposed to “universal law”], the use of the Latin language is to be preserved [emphasis mine] in the Latin rites [note that it does not state “only”].
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters [emphasis mine].
3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language [emphasis mine].
4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

Am I missing something?

 

[Cluny]

One thing I’d like to propose to the people here:

EVERY Eucharistic Sacrifice of any rite in any language reverently and properly celebrated according to the order and manner approved by the Church IS a, yea, THE “Traditional Mass.”

 

[wisdomseeker]

By traditional Mass I mean one according to the rubics that were in effect for the entire Latin Church prior to the promulgation of the Mass of Pope Paul VI.

Would you be in favor of have a few places in a good English translation instead of Latin? I am thinking primarily of the Readings (instead of having them repeated in English as part of the homily).

Also, would you be in favor of most or all of the Mass to be in English (good translation), such as was the case of the “transitional” Mass in the late 1960’s?

i would be in favor of the Readings being in english but the prayers and answers and hymns should be in Latin.

 

[daughteroftruth]

One thing I’d like to propose to the people here:

EVERY Eucharistic Sacrifice of any rite in any language reverently and properly celebrated according to the order and manner approved by the Church IS a, yea, THE “Traditional Mass.”

When did it become reverent to turn a back to the God we’re worshipping, and to turn to our neighbor to say hi within five minutes of Christ coming down to the altar?

 

[daughteroftruth]

And not being able to have children was also consider a “punishment” from God in the Old Testament. How is that relevant to Christianity?

NFP

If we all needed to speak one language, why not Aramaic, the language of our Lord and the apostles?
Why not Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament Scripture? Why not Greek, the language primarily used by the apostles in their missionary effort and in the New Testament Scripture? Why Latin, a language initially pagan? Why not Italian, the every-day language used in the Vatican? Why not English, the international language? Or Spanish, or French, or Portuguese…?

You enjoy questioning the Parent (Mother Church)?

And how do you know that is what the Lord “had in mind”? The last few popes, to include the late John Paul II and the current Benedict XVI, obviously disagree with that statement.

Simple, Christ prayed that we may be one, and a universal language helps foster that, for obvious reasons already mentioned.

John Paul II also disagreed with the Church’s teaching regarding the worship of false gods. What’s the point? Pope Benedict is restoring tradition, so you can’t use him against Latin or anything else that was recently tossed out.

Again, the Church grew (I’m referring to “quality” vs. quantity). You don’t allow your teen to behave like a toddler, to talk like a toddler, etc. You don’t set your 7 year old in a high chair because you did when he was two, you help him to grow up. Going back to the very beginning has already been condemned (Pope Pius XII, I think?)

If that was the case, one could argue for a language that was widely spoken throughout the world; Latin, obviously, is not. Some of our Eastern Catholic brethren could argue that Greek (although not Classical or Koine) is still spoken. But then again, not everyone speaks Greek.

Latin is a dead language which is why it shouldn’t change.

Catholic, from the Greek (not Latin) καθολικός (katholikos), means universal, general, throughout the whole. It does not mean uniform, standardized, homogeneous, identical.

Yet that’s what the Church is anyway.

… for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain [emphasis mine] its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place. (Orientalium Ecclesiarium 2)

Which “traditions whole and entire” were kept?

I think the Church is very clear about it; one does not have to be Latin to be Catholic…

Take a look at the bishops permitted authority. These days one does not even have to be *Catholic *to be Catholic.

 

[Cruikshank_s]

Was the SSPI a joke? I don’t get it, their disclaimer at the very bottom said that the site was for disinformation only… and since they can’t get catacombs built, they operate out of the basement… is it wrong that I chuckled at that?