In your heart of hearts, is Latin required?

[GloriousOrder]

Dearest brethren,

In the depths of your soul, what do you in the traditional ‘branch’ think about the use of vernacular in the liturgy when totally reverent? Does your opposition to the use of vernacular, in today’s liturgical prayer, really stem from a principled focus on Latin, or is your objection actually based in the fact that many Masses in vernacular just happen to be irreverent? There is a huge distinction between the two reasons for opposition.

I’ve been reading the various French, Italian, and German translations used in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The German, for example, has the complete Gloria in proper translation. There seems to be nothing wrong with it at all. Were the Latin O.F. translated properly into English (as is the case with this coming liturgical year), would you be able to rest without worry that God was being insulted?

Imagine an ad orientem, incense-filled, chant-soaked, quiet, solemn, reverent, beautiful Mass in English in a glorious neo-Gothic or neo-Romanesque sanctuary. How would it detract from the Mass that it would not be in Latin? I’m beginning to think that all this bickering over language is very pointless, given that the Latin is now being translated rather more accurately into all vulgar languages. What stops the O.F. from having that last percentage-point to attain “total dignity”?

Basically: is (any amount of) Latin required for the Roman Catholic Mass to have its fullest expression and beauty?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Dearest brethren,

In the depths of your soul, what do you in the traditional ‘branch’ think about the use of vernacular in the liturgy when totally reverent? Does your opposition to the use of vernacular, in today’s liturgical prayer, really stem from a principled focus on Latin, or is your objection actually based in the fact that many Masses in vernacular just happen to be irreverent? There is a huge distinction between the two reasons for opposition.

I’ve been reading the various French, Italian, and German translations used in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The German, for example, has the complete Gloria in proper translation. There seems to be nothing wrong with it at all. Were the Latin O.F. translated properly into English (as is the case with this coming liturgical year), would you be able to rest without worry that God was being insulted?

Imagine an ad orientem, incense-filled, chant-soaked, quiet, solemn, reverent, beautiful Mass in English in a glorious neo-Gothic or neo-Romanesque sanctuary. How would it detract from the Mass that it would not be in Latin? I’m beginning to think that all this bickering over language is very pointless, given that the Latin is now being translated rather more accurately into all vulgar languages. What stops the O.F. from having that last percentage-point to attain “total dignity”?

Basically: is (any amount of) Latin required for the Roman Catholic Mass to have its fullest expression and beauty?

Well, it doesn’t really matter what I think. I could think all sorts of things; some of them might be correct and others might not. But when it comes to the actual teaching of the Church, according to the documents of Vatican II, even the ‘verancular’ Mass is supposed (all things considered) to retain some prayers in Latin. (Plus, of course, Greek for the Kyrie).

So the O.F., with the requisite prayers in Latin, is what the Council was ‘aiming for’. . . and that means that at least some Latin seems mandated. And it also seems clear, see below, that any changes beyond must be submitted for approval to the Apostolic See.

Per Sacrosanctum Concilium we read:
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
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.
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.
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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Basically: is (any amount of) Latin required for the Roman Catholic Mass to have its fullest expression and beauty?

I know that forum polls are hardly scientific, but why not ask the question in a more neutral venue? You ask if Latin is required in a Traditional Forum, you know what the answer would be by the majority.

 

[damooster]

I know that forum polls are hardly scientific, but why not ask the question in a more neutral venue? You ask if Latin is required in a Traditional Forum, you know what the answer would be by the majority.

Actually, if you reread the question, it’s obvious that the OP is trying to bait “traditionalists.”

 

[ProVobis]

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Note that this is stronger statement than that of the Council of Trent which didn’t mention Latin but made it anathema to use the all-vernacular .

It basically says that Latin is to be preserved where allowed by law. There are some countries which actually ban languages; thus the allowance for vernacular.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually, if you reread the question, it’s obvious that the OP is trying to bait “traditionalists.”

So noted.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So noted.

I prefer to think it is couched in phraseology ambiguous enough that it could truly be that the OP is sincerely questioning rather than baiting.

I mean, some of the ‘questions’ that are asked on these forums look dreadful but the people asking the questions don’t mean them to be. They use the phrases and the concepts that they themselves have been taught and truly don’t know that they might have been taught incorrectly or with a certain kind of 'emPHAsis on the wrong sylLAble" as my old English teacher used to put it.

 

[ProVobis]

I prefer to think it is couched in phraseology ambiguous enough that it could truly be that the OP is sincerely questioning rather than baiting.

Perhaps and you gave a good response. But I’m just thinking of what kind of responses I would get if I started a/n “Is English required to say Mass?” thread. It would seem kind of pointless, except to the Church of England maybe.

 

[CountrySteve]

i say no one is going to hell if theres no latin but the latin tongue is beautiful i think at least but is not necessarily

 

[TrueLight]

Dearest brethren,

In the depths of your soul, what do you in the traditional ‘branch’ think about the use of vernacular in the liturgy when totally reverent? Does your opposition to the use of vernacular, in today’s liturgical prayer, really stem from a principled focus on Latin, or is your objection actually based in the fact that many Masses in vernacular just happen to be irreverent? There is a huge distinction between the two reasons for opposition.

I’ve been reading the various French, Italian, and German translations used in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The German, for example, has the complete Gloria in proper translation. There seems to be nothing wrong with it at all. Were the Latin O.F. translated properly into English (as is the case with this coming liturgical year), would you be able to rest without worry that God was being insulted?

Imagine an ad orientem, incense-filled, chant-soaked, quiet, solemn, reverent, beautiful Mass in English in a glorious neo-Gothic or neo-Romanesque sanctuary. How would it detract from the Mass that it would not be in Latin? I’m beginning to think that all this bickering over language is very pointless, given that the Latin is now being translated rather more accurately into all vulgar languages. What stops the O.F. from having that last percentage-point to attain “total dignity”?

Basically: is (any amount of) Latin required for the Roman Catholic Mass to have its fullest expression and beauty?

In my heart of hearts I would very much praise God for an "an ad orientem, incense-filled, chant-soaked, quiet, solemn, reverent, beautiful Mass in English in a glorious neo-Gothic or neo-Romanesque sanctuary. "

But why does my spirit feel like it’s rising to the heavens when I hear Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth.

Keep the Latin!

 

[Hunter53]

YES

 

[The_Reginator]

In my “heart of hearts” I am always somewhat dismayed at the casualness of the OF (which I assist at a few times a week as the nearest EF is too far away).

A lot of my problem is the casual, everyday language. I really miss the Anglican Book of Common Prayer – if you want to see worship in the vernacular the, old BCP is a wonderful example.

There is nothing ‘ordinary’ about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. My main reason for preferring Latin is to be extraordinary when “Christ our God to earth descendeth, our full homage to demand”. Mass is the closest we get to heaven on earth. We try not to dress in our casual clothes. We give up other activities that we could be doing in order to witness an actual miracle. We are in the very Real Presence of God.

When we use Latin our language of worship itself is extraordinary. We should be doing all we can to make Mass a mystical, supernatural, majestic, and reverent time of Communion with our Lord and Savior!

Latin, or very rich and formal English, really helps.
Let’s make it obvious that every Mass is a special experience so that those with a weak faith can see that God is present and note that a miracle is taking place.

(That’s gotta be at least two cents. I could go on and on. I’m all fired up about Mass these days!)

 

[ProVobis]

A lot of my problem is the casual, everyday language. I really miss the Anglican Book of Common Prayer – if you want to see worship in the vernacular the, old BCP is a wonderful example.

Good post but I have to question what is meant by “vernacular” here. I wouldn’t say Cranmer English with its “thee,” “thou,” “vouchsafe,” “hallowed,” and “wherefore” language is exactly understandable by today’s 5-yr olds. It seems as if the Anglican English has frozen its BCP language, which really had no Christian history behind it, only barbaric roots. It also seems (and this is important) that the Anglicans, who are that attached to their BCP language, would never allow Latin into their liturgy to reciprocate those who are attached to Christian Latin. So (and this is not an attack against you) why is it a surprise that those so attached to much older Latin want nothing to do with a barbaric (and hostile to the Church) language in the liturgy?

 

[Senecus]

I was fortunate to experience my first mass in a Catholic sanitorium in the Alps, many years ago, which was conducted in Latin and High German.

But I responded “no” to this survey, because Latin does not have exclusive domain on reverence.

Consider the beautiful “Old English” in use at this Lutheran traditional Pentecost Service. The translation from Latin into these particular words is more accurate than our current OF liturgy, however, the new revised liturgy will be very close to this example: (the first 8 minutes of the video cover the Confession thru the Gloria - - note the new Catholic response to the “Lord Be With You” dialog).

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2940862931815796796#

So, in summary, as can be seen, our own traditional English is also a beautiful, spiritual language.

 

[The_Reginator]

Good post but I have to question what is meant by “vernacular” here. I wouldn’t say Cranmer English with its “thee,” “thou,” “vouchsafe,” “hallowed,” and “wherefore” language is exactly understandable by today’s 5-yr olds. It seems as if the Anglican English has frozen its BCP language, which really had no Christian history behind it, only barbaric roots. It also seems (and this is important) that the Anglicans, who are that attached to their BCP language, would never allow Latin into their liturgy to reciprocate those who are attached to Christian Latin. So (and this is not an attack against you) why is it a surprise that those so attached to much older Latin want nothing to do with a barbaric (and hostile to the Church) language in the liturgy?

It’s bedtime, but I’ll give you a quick reply.
By “vernacular” I was merely referring to the fact that the BCP uses English (albeit old English) rather than another language, such as Latin.
The style of English used is not just everyday, casual English. It is more formal, for an unusual experience – the experience of attending any church is becoming more unusual year after year.
When I converted from the Anglican community I fell in love with Latin for that very reason.

Dominus tecum, Reg.

 

[Bigcat71]

In response to your question I ask the following:

In your heart of hearts is any amount of whatever vernacular you choose required for the Roman Catholic Mass to have its fullest expression and beauty?

 

[At_Trent]

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXL5k8_se-4M61qyrd0ClNG_Q8WA_RiRbI8o9zUE2tRvkjmFfP

…and a few lines of Greek

 

[Te_Deum]

Latin is absolutely necessary to the liturgy of the Latin Church yes.

 

[laszlo]

For the highlighted question the answer is definite no.

The ancient Mass before Pope Damasus was not Latin, and after 1970 our Mother he Church does not requires the Latin. Sincs St Pius X we know that the Mass is not the internal affair of the clergy, and the waste majority of the laity even many, I would say the majority, of the clergy do not understand the Latin at least not in the level of a mother language, with their mind, heart and kidneys. God wants us entirely, our intellect, our hearts our kidneys and an unknown and not felt language excludes all three levels.

In more generic sense the Latin as the official language of the Church between pope Damasus and the XXI Ecumenical council should be taught and used as the language of definition.

 

[GloriousOrder]

Well, it doesn’t really matter what I think. I could think all sorts of things; some of them might be correct and others might not. But when it comes to the actual teaching of the Church, according to the documents of Vatican II, even the ‘verancular’ Mass is supposed (all things considered) to retain some prayers in Latin. (Plus, of course, Greek for the Kyrie).
…]

Well of course you can cite Vatican II and many documents, but that wasn’t really my concern. I’m asking all of you, here on this specific forum, what you really think. I know that my own heart is not conformed to the teaching of the Church on many issues, because I am still working through my arrogant atheist personality, trying to get rid of it with His help. Though I am not conformed, I try my best and hardest to do what the Church teaches, in the hope that my heart will be converted.

This isn’t about the ‘letter of the law’, but your internal mode. You can say “oh, I accept Vatican II Constitution X Paragraph Y Article Z with all my heart”, but that isn’t the point. I am trying to get more at the inner personal psychology of it.

For you, what IS the Mass? I’m not asking a question about Church law, norms, or popular opinion. I want each precious immortal soul’s opinion on “why Latin, why Vernacular, why this, why that”. I made this thread to find out more about people, and to dwell in unity with you by expressing deepest beliefs - without hiding them because we’re afraid we’ll look anti-Vatican II-ish.

I know that forum polls are hardly scientific, but why not ask the question in a more neutral venue? You ask if Latin is required in a Traditional Forum, you know what the answer would be by the majority.

I wouldn’t ask the question anywhere else simply because I find this sub-forum to be the most balanced. Were I to pose this question anywhere else, I do believe I’d get an anti-Latin slant/bias. I’ve had enough of that, so I decided to come here and get some real reasons for real things. Anyway, we have the Old Medic and a few others who post here, that can give reasons that might perhaps be contrary to our own! Knowing truth only comes by relation to the other - you cannot experience truth without having contacted the thing that is true. I can hardly go on imagining that traditionalists believe THIS, and liberals believe THAT - I must ask them all.

Dominican Motto: VERITAS, at all costs.

Actually, if you reread the question, it’s obvious that the OP is trying to bait “traditionalists.”

My friend, I am a traditionalist. Please don’t assume that another man’s question has a cognitive bias just because you have a cognitive bias. There seems to be a trend in this sub-forum: anything asked about trads, whether in charity or in hatred, is lambasted as a “bait”. Not everyone is out to troll you, my dear brother!

I prefer to think it is couched in phraseology ambiguous enough that it could truly be that the OP is sincerely questioning rather than baiting.

I mean, some of the ‘questions’ that are asked on these forums look dreadful but the people asking the questions don’t mean them to be. They use the phrases and the concepts that they themselves have been taught and truly don’t know that they might have been taught incorrectly or with a certain kind of 'emPHAsis on the wrong sylLAble" as my old English teacher used to put it.

This is very much in accord with the truth. Please forgive me if I seemed to insinuate any sort of condescending attitude.

For my own part, I firmly believe every Catholic Church should have a gigantic, glorious high altar of majesty, with reredos extending into the shadows of the high ceilings. My dream for the Mass is an array of Latin propers, ordinaries, and antiphons ringing out, echoing across the whole world, carried on the winds by the humongous brass bells pounding out “Veni, Creator Spiritus”, and chiming joyfully at the Elevation. The Mass is our imperial entry into the New Jerusalem, into the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and should be as grand as possible.

In my heart of hearts I would very much praise God for an "an ad orientem, incense-filled, chant-soaked, quiet, solemn, reverent, beautiful Mass in English in a glorious neo-Gothic or neo-Romanesque sanctuary. "

But why does my spirit feel like it’s rising to the heavens when I hear Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth.

Keep the Latin!

Yes, but why? I’ve heard an English setting of the Sanctus that moved me very deeply. I’m not trying to question everything, but I want you to give better reasons for your conviction than emotional ones (granted, my reasons are pretty emotional… )!

In response to your question I ask the following:

In your heart of hearts is any amount of whatever vernacular you choose required for the Roman Catholic Mass to have its fullest expression and beauty?

I don’t believe it is, no. I also don’t believe Latin is required for fullest expression and beauty. We are the sons of God, and He hears the fullness of our rightly-ordered prayer in whatever language. Remember the tower of Babel? We spoke one, unified language as human beings (probably Latin ), but we became proud so He cast us down and divided us. It seems reasonable to believe that when a man prays through the blessed Virgin in English, that blessed lady hears the same language as if a man were praying through her in Spanish or Korean. Heaven is beyond the mystery of language-barriers, of course.