In your heart of hearts, is Latin required?

[laszlo]

For instance, generations of English speakers got along fine saying “…hallowed be thy name…” It didn’t hurt their understanding of the text , even when “thy” became an archaism. What was gained in changing it?

St Peter asks Forrest Gump what is God’s first name.

He immediately answers: Howard.

???

We all pray Howard is thy name.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The point is, that the modern vernacular is necessary for the understanding and sensing the meaning.

 

[cradlecatholic5]

I say NO

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I am very much in love with the TLM/EF Mass. I wish that the Older devotions and were still the common practice. I think that those that implemented VII did things that were never intened to be done out of misunderstanding. I would love latin at most all parts of the Mass as after all I am a Latin rite Catholic.
However, I voted no. No one language is required for the Mass to be valid. It is not the language that makes are breaks it.

Here the thing that gets me from those that are so opposed to Latin. they say it is because they do not understand the language. My Question to them is how many times do they and other misunderstand what is said in the common language. and Just how well do they truely understand all of the Prayers and reading that they hear at mass now in the common language?

 

[Cristiano]

I did not read the whole thread but I want to state that I voted yes, and I was voting only in reference to the Latin Church and in reference to my understanding of the Council of Trent documents and the VII documents. In my heart of hearts I love Latin and other traditions of the Church, but I do not have complete understanding on how they benefit or would benefit the universal spirituality and so I simply go by what the Church says.

 

[cradlecatholic5]

I wish that the Older devotions and were still the common practice.

I still say my devotions & novenas.

 

[Iotaunum]

I have not read all of the responses on this thread, but I voted Yes - perhaps becase I am overwhelmed by the opposition to Latin in the litugy since Vatican II and I am predisposed to favour Latin and its causes in all areas of the Liturgy. So I admit, not a very accurate answer.

Latin is not required absolutely. I have not heard anyone argue that it is, and I can’t imagine anyone doing so. Everyone who knows anything about the liturgy and its history knows that Latin is the least of all issues with the New rite. Had the Pope simply permitted the Latin rite to be said in the vernacular word for word, there would have been very little resistance. That being said, the Popes and saints have wrote enough on the use of this dead langugage and its intrinsic benefits to guarding the purity of doctrine and worship that it would require a sufficiently grave reason/reasons and cricumstances to overturn this tradtion and the benefits of the Latin tongue. I am of the opinion that if we are going to change anything which has been practiced/held for centuries, even 1000 years, be it a rite or a doctrine, then we should have a very good reason indeed for doing so. The laity understanding the rite better simply doesnt wash with me, nor refute the reasons against the use of vernacular which many great Catholic thinkers and Popes have presented.

 

[Evan]

I voted no. I always appreciate any Latin left in the mass. I love the Latin. I’ve been reading the NT in latin.

But, I love to go to mass in a foreign language.

In our parish we have it in Spanish and Fr said many of those who speak Spanish don’t like that he introduced the Agnus Dei and Sanctus in latin for lent!!! And if you speak Spanish, latin is easy.

I’ve also gone to the Korean mass in Tacoma (WA) and not understood a word, but loved the universality, the respect, and the atmosphere of another culture.

I’ve been to masses in French and Bangla also (think Bangladesh).

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Seeing/hearing that we all pray in the same fashion but with different words is a sign of our universality/catholicity in the Church. It would also be a great sign to attend a latin mass in the country where I do not speak a word of the language.

I’m hoping to someday go to an OF mass in Latin. I think there is one every Sunday in Portland OR.

 

[Sanctifiable]

I like Latin and feel it should be said always. I heard it explained once like this: Catholic means universal, Latin is the language of the church and pre V2 most every mass in the entire world on a given day anywhere was said in one language and that language was Latin. We are one body. That very thought boggles my mind and to me its almost like a country giving up its language and using a variety of different languages JMO

 

[Sanctifiable]

Imagine going to mass in 1960 and your used to Latin and know whats going on at mass (which wouldn’t take long if we all started going to Latin mass again) and you go to France but don’t know the French language and you go to a Latin mass you would be at home and know the language despite being in a foreign country. That would be awesome. Latin is still our official church language and imagine how unique that was in comparison to the other christian churches, now the readings are the same but then the language was the same also.

 

[TheMc]

I say NO

Frankly, it doesn’t matter what you say. Vatican II says that the usage of latin should be retained, with some vernacular being used.

 

[TheMc]

Imagine going to mass in 1960 and your used to Latin and know whats going on at mass (which wouldn’t take long if we all started going to Latin mass again) and you go to France but don’t know the French language and you go to a Latin mass you would be at home and know the language despite being in a foreign country. That would be awesome. Latin is still our official church language and imagine how unique that was in comparison to the other christian churches, now the readings are the same but then the language was the same also.

That is indeed awesome. The use of latin unites the whole church!!

 

[Melchior_1]

Frankly, it doesn’t matter what you say. Vatican II says that the usage of latin should be retained, with some vernacular being used.

Rome also says female alter servers are allowed, but I don’t see some of the people here lining up to advocate that

 

[TheMc]

Rome also says female alter servers are allowed, but I don’t see some of the people here lining up to advocate that

Yes, they are allowed, but Rome also altar boys are a priority, and that altar girls may be banned anywhere in the chain of command from the bishop of the diocese to the celebrant of the Mass.

It also said that there is an obligation to maintain and support groups of altar boys.

One more thing Rome said:

“it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar”

So it’s not as cut and dried as some people think it is. Rome gives preference (some would say a strong preference) to altar boys, and allows altar girls to be banned locally or regionally.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Rome also says female alter servers are allowed, but I don’t see some of the people here lining up to advocate that

In the OF, as an indult, **and perhaps it has escaped your attention that any bishop may refuse to permit them in his diocese. I believe that the diocese of Arlington is one such diocese. **

**IOW, like so many other things (non-Lenten Friday penance, anyone?) at a given point indults have been sought to supposedly bring good things. **

**As we see from the Bishops in the UK (who are bringing back “meatless Fridays through the year” this fall), sometimes these practices don’t exactly work out the way they were supposed to. **

**I support my bishop’s authority but I can, respectfully, disagree with the conclusions he has made, provided I still accept that it is HIS provenance to make those decisions, not mine. **

 

[kotim]

I personally see no problem with not having Latin, you can stil make the mass reverntial, you can still use insence and other such things.

The only way Latin would ever be used properly again is if you made it mandatory that they taught Latin in catholic Schools again, and there is no chance of that and personally nor should there be.

We could use more reverential language etc, but the days of Latin coming back are gone.

Tim Hayes

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Lol @ the yes voters. Probably no different to the Islamic fundamentalists who believe the same thing about Arabic.

I personally love the Latin language, I like the grandeur that it portrays in my eyes, and I don’t mind attending a Latin mass, or doing prayers in Latin because I do understand it, but to claim the language has some divine touch on it is a case of misplaced nostalgia kicking in. Not everyone sees the grandeur though, to others it sounds no different than some other foreign language they care not to hear about, it’s too subjective.

I suppose Jesus delivered all his sermons in pure ecclesiastical Latin, complete with stole and pointy hat.

 

[ac_claire]

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.

^^ This.

 

[TheMc]

Lol @ the yes voters. Probably no different to the Islamic fundamentalists who believe the same thing about Arabic.

I personally love the Latin language, I like the grandeur that it portrays in my eyes, and I don’t mind attending a Latin mass, or doing prayers in Latin because I do understand it, but to claim the language has some divine touch on it is a case of misplaced nostalgia kicking in. Not everyone sees the grandeur though, to others it sounds no different than some other foreign language they care not to hear about, it’s too subjective.

I suppose Jesus delivered all his sermons in pure ecclesiastical Latin, complete with stole and pointy hat.

No one is saying sermons will be given in latin, unless, of course, it is the language to use so that the most people understand.

But the church has said that “the usage of latin is to be preserved.”

 

[ProVobis]

Per Sacrosanctum Concilium we read:

But I can claim that even that is a biased translation of the Latin in which it was written:

1. § 1. Linguae latinae usus, salvo particulari iure, in Ritibus latinis servetur.

§ 2. Cum tamen, sive in Missa, sive in Sacramentorum administratione, sive in aliis Liturgiae partibus, haud raro linguae vernaculae usurpatio valde utilis apud populum exsistere possit, amplior locus ipsi tribui valeat, imprimis autem in lectionibus et admonitionibus, in nonnullis orationibus et cantibus, iuxta normas quae de hac re in sequentibus capitibus singillatim statuuntur.

§ 3. Huiusmodi normis servatis, est competentis auctoritatis ecclesiasticae [110] territorialis, de qua in art. 22 § 2, etiam, si casus ferat, consilio habito cum Episcopis finitimarum regionum eiusdem linguae, de usu et modo linguae vernaculae statuere, actis ab Apostolica Sede probatis seu confirmatis.

§ 4. Conversio textus latini in linguam vernaculam in Liturgia adhibenda, a competenti auctoritate ecclesiastica territoriali, de qua supra, approbari debet.

For example “haud raro” (literally, not rarely) is translated as “frequently.” But there should be no doubt that the first clause is the ruling theme:

Linguae latinae usus, salvo particulari iure, in Ritibus latinis servetur.

This is even stronger than what Trent decreed, minus the anathema issued against all-vernacular liturgies. Unless there is law, civil or otherwise, against Latin, Latin is to be preserved in the Latin Rite liturgy. Do England or the United States have such laws against Latin? NO! Did Pope John XXIII allow vernacular in the Mass? NO! Therefore the rest shouldn’t be applicable. However, the ICEL apparently had a different agenda.