Language

[Brian_Crane]

I am currently attending Mass in Spanish because of an assignment in South America. I don’t understand the language and cannot participate - as I could if parts were in Latin. I can still follow along and know when the basic parts of the Mass are happening.

This is a point I always make to people. Here at my hometown parish (Novus Ordo), there are spanish masses and english masses as well as catechism divided by language. People always complain that there is no unity. The Mexicans do their thing and the Anglos do theirs. What can we do, they cry. Well, nothing can be done as far as I can tell outside of having the Mass in ONE LANGUAGE. Before masses in venacular, one could attend mass in South America, or Japan, or France, and it would be the same Mass as in Anytown, USA. That’s unity baby!

Another issue with the vernacular is that English, for example, is an evolving language. One of the reasons it takes so long to address translation issues is that English usage is different in the US, UK, Australia etc. Same problem with Spanish. Ecclesial Latin is the same where ever it is used.

Great point! Latin is a dead language. There is no translation problem. There is less room for rogue bishops conferences to abuse the translations.

 

[otm]

Deacon Ed:

For me, however, Latin was also the language I used to read Caesar’s Gaelic Wars, to read Pliny and Cicero. I read Homer in Greek, so Greek is not, for me, a liturgical language.

Is that becasue you learned Homeric Greek, as opposed to Koinae? We read the Odyssey, but we also read John’s Gospel in 2nd year Greek, when we got into Koinae Greek.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

otm:

I respectfully disagree. Saying the prayers in English while it is being said in Latin is akin to going to an opera or movie in a foreign language shich you do not know. You can read the subtitles while it is being sung, or the movie is playing, but you most definitely do not have the same experience as you would if it was said in a language you understood. And the point carries further, because you may have the Confetior memorized, but the rest of the Mass you don’t; so you either sit there having no idea what is being said, or read a translation as it is being said. Net net: the opera. You may understand the vocal dynamics of the singers; you may appreciate the melody, but you don’t know what the aside was that the alto just made…

Let’s not take things out of context. The GIRM also talks about silence, but it has nothing to do with Mass in Latin; it has to do with certain times during the Mass to reflect (e.g. during the readins).

Again, I disagree. I was an altar server prior to Vatican 2; The change was immense and powerful. and it is so much more than “playing a part”.

Your opera analogy fails to represent the differences because you’re forcing participation once again solely into interaction with the text, whereas I am arguing that participation goes beyond the text to internal disposition. My point is not that you can participate just as fully by speaking in Latin as you can in the vernacular; my point is that you don’t need to speak at all. The pope’s remarks on silence are not taken out of context because they do not require the context of the Latin Mass. If silence is active and participatory then it has just as much potential to be so during a Latin or vernacular Mass, or even a Divine Liturgy for that matter. Why should it be possible to participate through silence only in the context of a vernacular “dialog” Mass?

Don’t get any ideas that I’m working off some attachment to the Tridentine Rite of my childhood. I’ve only attended it once in my life. But when I did (and also when I attended a Byzantine Rite in Prague - making it a liturgy with TWO languages I don’t understand) I applied the theology of silent participation with the priest and had very fulfilling and uplifting worship. This sort of worship probably requires more effort and discipline to extract its fruits (I expect that the distractions of life would often cause me to fail at it), but that does not make the fruits any less real.

 

[mercygate]

Somwhere in this thread (I think it was ByzCath) someone mentioned that it is not possible for the congregation to participate in Gregorian Chant. My experience is quite the oposite and I know of congregations who chant the ordinary of the Mass in more than one Gregorian setting. It is no more inaccessible than the modern settings.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Brian Crane:

This is a point I always make to people. Here at my hometown parish (Novus Ordo), there are spanish masses and english masses as well as catechism divided by language. People always complain that there is no unity. The Mexicans do their thing and the Anglos do theirs. What can we do, they cry. Well, nothing can be done as far as I can tell outside of having the Mass in ONE LANGUAGE. Before masses in venacular, one could attend mass in South America, or Japan, or France, and it would be the same Mass as in Anytown, USA. That’s unity baby!

So instead of some people not knowing the language the Mass is in your for everyone not knowing it?

As for the comment of Mass in one language, there was never such a time. The Trad Latin Mass was said in the venacular and there will never be unity in a parish when there are multiple Masses each Sunday. This is a false unity that you want to ascribe by language.

Great point! Latin is a dead language. There is no translation problem. There is less room for rogue bishops conferences to abuse the translations.

Latin is not a dead language. There is an office in the Vatican that creates new words as necessary. Latin is on the ATM machines in the Vatican.

There would be more occasion for abuses as the majority of laity would not know enough Latin to know when subtle changes were made to the prayers.

If we want a return to Latin only then we need to teach Latin. Where is this going to happen? In the place of catechism classes? Or in addition to? Won’t happen in the public schools. So we will need to find the time for the classes and then the money to pay the teachers.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Andreas Hofer:

Your opera analogy fails to represent the differences because you’re forcing participation once again solely into interaction with the text, whereas I am arguing that participation goes beyond the text to internal disposition. My point is not that you can participate just as fully by speaking in Latin as you can in the vernacular; my point is that you don’t need to speak at all.

This is a very good point but one I find some disagreement with.

You speak of internal disposition, but how can we fully participate when we do not know what is being said?

How can we orient ourselves correctly when we do not know what prayers are being said? The priest may be praying a different prayer than we think becuase we do not know the language.

My main issue is with the Mass being done in a language that we do not know. I am not against some of the prayers being in Latin, the way they do the Mass on EWTN. The Divine Liturgy I attend every Sunday is about 90% in English with some Greek and some Arabic. I know the Greek and Arabic we use as I learned it by attending the liturgy, but the majority of it is in English. I see nothing wrong with this and I think it is a more sound practice.

Many of those who are for the Trad Latin Mass are against the Mass in the venacular. This is what I have an issue with. They can raise no arguement for this except for some vague idea that the Theology has changed.

 

[Brian_Crane]

ByzCath:

So instead of some people not knowing the language the Mass is in your for everyone not knowing it?

Ahh, the typical retort. Let me say this. I would like certain things changed in the mass before I would change the vernacular. Language is not the be all, end all for me. If the old mass were said in English vs. Latin, I wouldn’t have a problem, all other things being equal. But I would submit, that one language is better than many languages. And I would submit that Latin is the best language to use, as it is the official language of the church. I do not know Latin, yet I can follow a Latin Mass with the use of a missal. By repetition, I can follow certain parts of the mass in Latin as well: the prayers, the responses etc. Practically everyone could do this, and did do this before the sixties.

ByzCath:

As for the comment of Mass in one language, there was never such a time. The Trad Latin Mass was said in the venacular and there will never be unity in a parish when there are multiple Masses each Sunday. This is a false unity that you want to ascribe by language.?

Are you trying to be cute? I’m sure the TLM was said in the vernacular somewhere, sometimes, and illicitly, but overwhelmingly, the Mass was in one language–Latin. Actually, I think there is much more unity in a parish where Mexicans and Anglos stand next to each other at multiple masses each Sunday, rather than each attending mass in their own language. You would disagree with this?

ByzCath:

Latin is not a dead language. There is an office in the Vatican that creates new words as necessary. Latin is on the ATM machines in the Vatican.

Ok, Latin is not dead, like Aramaic. It is on life support. The point is, like you say, The Vatican creates new words as necessary, not National Bishops conferences, not the laity, not the world at large. There are no colloquialisms peculiar to different countries and regions of the world.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Brian Crane:

Are you trying to be cute? I’m sure the TLM was said in the vernacular somewhere, sometimes, and illicitly, but overwhelmingly, the Mass was in one language–Latin. Actually, I think there is much more unity in a parish where Mexicans and Anglos stand next to each other at multiple masses each Sunday, rather than each attending mass in their own language. You would disagree with this?

Well here you are wrong.

The TLM was said in the venacular in many places in the world licitly.

There were dispensations to do so.

This is a fact that many wish to ignore.

And yes I would disagree with this, as unity is though the Eucharist. It doesn’t matter what Mass you attend or where you attend it. Unity is though our partaking of the Eucharist in a Catholic Church. Do you deny that?

The argument on language does not hold when you 1) look at the whole Catholic Church (not just the Latin Catholic Church) as other Churches within the Catholic Church have used the venacular for centuries and 2) look at the Latin Catholic Church and see that in places there were dispensations for the TLM to be done in the venacular.

 

[otm]

Andreas Hofer:

Your opera analogy fails to represent the differences because you’re forcing participation once again solely into interaction with the text, whereas I am arguing that participation goes beyond the text to internal disposition. My point is not that you can participate just as fully by speaking in Latin as you can in the vernacular; my point is that you don’t need to speak at all. The pope’s remarks on silence are not taken out of context because they do not require the context of the Latin Mass. If silence is active and participatory then it has just as much potential to be so during a Latin or vernacular Mass, or even a Divine Liturgy for that matter. Why should it be possible to participate through silence only in the context of a vernacular “dialog” Mass?

Don’t get any ideas that I’m working off some attachment to the Tridentine Rite of my childhood. I’ve only attended it once in my life. But when I did (and also when I attended a Byzantine Rite in Prague - making it a liturgy with TWO languages I don’t understand) I applied the theology of silent participation with the priest and had very fulfilling and uplifting worship. This sort of worship probably requires more effort and discipline to extract its fruits (I expect that the distractions of life would often cause me to fail at it), but that does not make the fruits any less real.

Again, I say that you are taking the Pope’s quote out of context. Silence has it’s place, and participation can be in silence. But it is a far leap from participating in silence (a time for meditation: between the readings, after the homily, and after Communion) during prescribed times, and saying that silence through the entire Mass, said in another language (Spanish, Vietnamese, Latin, take your pick) comes anywhere near full participation. Participation of course starts with internal disposition! and I don’t presume to say that one does not participate if the Mass is in another language. I do say that one does not participate as fully when it is in another language; thus my analogy to opera.

 

[otm]

mercygate:

Somwhere in this thread (I think it was ByzCath) someone mentioned that it is not possible for the congregation to participate in Gregorian Chant. My experience is quite the oposite and I know of congregations who chant the ordinary of the Mass in more than one Gregorian setting. It is no more inaccessible than the modern settings.

I happen to think that Gregorian Chant, well done, is one of the most solemn and spirtual forms of music around. Note the operative laguage: well done.

I heard a funeral Mass on EWTN; I finall turned it off as they were making an absolute hash of it. They were off-key, some singing in different registers (I think that is the term), and appeared to have no clue as to the dynamics.

Gregorian chant is best sung by someone with a fairly good range in the higher registers as opposed to the lower (bass need not apply). There is a dynamic flow in volume that congregations are simply not capable of. In fact, a goodly number of choirs are not capable of it either, by their performance.

While congregations can sing it, I think they are much more likely to do at least minimal justice to another form of music.

I like Gregorian chant too much to do it (poorly) just for the sake of doing it. IMHO congregations are about as capable of singing Gregorian chant properly as they are singing 4 part Palistrina, or worse yet, singing along with a choir doing it.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

If Latin is actually a great hindrance to active participation, then why did the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium state that:

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

Further, in regards to active participation, why did this same document state that:

1. Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

It has been stated, in books such as “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” by Fr. Ralph Wittgen, that the Council Fathers simply never imagined a liturgy entirely in the vernacular.

In fact, in the above document, where it talks about using the vernacular, it states:

1. …This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants,…

In other words, it applies first and foremost to some of the changeable parts of the Mass such as “some of the prayers.”

And, obviously, in the Tridentine rite, most of it stays unchanged from Mass to Mass. Thus as one assists at it, one gains a better understanding of what is being said. It really is not that difficult.

 

[otm]

Brian, you seem to be saying that unity is brought by a common language. The problem with that is that Latin is not, and has not been, a common language since the Romans lost power to the various tribes world wide. A common language is one that people can speak and understand. Almost no one, world wide, speaks or understands Latin.

You are blurring the common language of a people ( in the US it is still English) with the difficulty of addressing the spiritual needs of a large segment of the population which does not speak that language; to wit, the large immigration population of Hispanics in the US. Moving to Latin will simply leave both groups out in the cold, neither knowing what is being said. I don’t call that unity, whether the Masses are for separate population groups, or they are all present together not understanding what is being said.
Switzerland has three languages, as they have three distinct populations, and they seem to manage; in large part because many people are fluent in more than one language.

You may wish to argue that one does not have fuller participation in the Mass when it is in the vernacular, but I don’t think you have a tenable arguement.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Brennan Doherty:

It has been stated, in books such as “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” by Fr. Ralph Wittgen, that the Council Fathers simply never imagined a liturgy entirely in the vernacular.

I think you need to go back and read what I have said.

No where did I call for a liturgy entirely in the vernacular.

 

[kmktexas]

OTM,

You are blurring the common language of a people ( in the US it is still English) with the difficulty of addressing the spiritual needs of a large segment of the population which does not speak that language; to wit, the large immigration population of Hispanics in the US. Moving to Latin will simply leave both groups out in the cold, neither knowing what is being said.

This is true in the current state of the Church. However, it would not be the case that anyone would be “out in the cold” if:

1. Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

had been followed.

The “people” we are talking about are Catholics - worldwide. There is no common language of Catholics. There used to be - Latin. The question is whether there is value in having a common language now. I think there is. This isn’t just a problem of Hispanic immigrants. I doubt that’s an issue anywhere except the US. This is a problem of an increasingly mobile society and the identity problems that Catholics face when they are mobile as well.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

kmktexas:

The “people” we are talking about are Catholics - worldwide. There is no common language of Catholics. There used to be - Latin. The question is whether there is value in having a common language now. I think there is. This isn’t just a problem of Hispanic immigrants. I doubt that’s an issue anywhere except the US. This is a problem of an increasingly mobile society and the identity problems that Catholics face when they are mobile as well.

No, there was never a common language of Catholics. There may have been a common language of the Latin Catholic Church (but I do not even buy that given the fact that the TLM was said in the venacular in some places).

The Catholic Church is made up of 22 sui iuris Churches. The Latin Catholic Church being one of them. There are 21 other Churches that do not, and have not, used Latin.

 

[pnewton]

Do those of you who are advocating that Latin only be used in Masses think that RCIA should be lengthened to 2-3 years to provide for the proper language instruction?

How would Latin only Masses impact incoming converts to the faith who never heard a word of Latin?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

ByzCath:

I think you need to go back and read what I have said.

No where did I call for a liturgy entirely in the vernacular.

ByzCath,

My post did not refer to you. I did not say you advocate the Mass entirely in the vernacular.

What I was referring to is the fact that most Masses worldwide are entirely in the vernacular and I am arguing this is not something the majority of the Council Fathers desired or anticipated.

And the more important point I was attempting to make is that it seems as though people are arguing that Latin is a hindrance to the active participation of the people. And I am asking, if Latin is a real hindrance to the active participation of the people, then why did Sacrosanctum Concilium (as I quoted above) call for Latin to be preserved in the Latin rite and for steps to be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them?

Thus it seems as though the Council Fathers envisioned a liturgy where the unchanging parts would remain in Latin, with the option of the readings and directives, and some of the prayers and chants being said in the vernacular.

The bottom line is that it does not seem as though the Council Fathers considered Latin to be a hindrance to active participation, as they seemed to envision a liturgy primarily in Latin with the possibility of some changeable parts in the vernacular.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

pnewton:

Do those of you who are advocating that Latin only be used in Masses think that RCIA should be lengthened to 2-3 years to provide for the proper language instruction?

How would Latin only Masses impact incoming converts to the faith who never heard a word of Latin?

As I have stated above, most of the Tridentine Mass is unchanging and therefore people can easily gain a greater understanding of what is going on as they assist at Mass. And of course RCIA can and should explain to them what is happening at Mass, which would not require expanding the program to 2 - 3 years.

Also, they can be trained to use a missal in an RCIA class where they can read along in the vernacular until they become more familiar with Latin, which is not difficult to do when most of the Mass is the same week after week and day after day.

Further, it’s interesting to note that the use of Latin in the liturgy certainly did not prevent a greater number of converts coming into the Catholic faith than occurs today, and since they are converts, I believe many of them would not have had much of a previous background in Latin.

And I personally am not advocating Latin only in the liturgy. In the indults I have attended, the priest has read the scriptures in English prior to the homily, which is perfectly fine, of course.

 

[pnewton]

Brennan Doherty:

Further, it’s interesting to note that the use of Latin in the liturgy certainly did not prevent a greater number of converts coming into the Catholic faith than occurs today…
.

So you think the number of converts is dropping? Are there any such stats on this sort of thing?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

pnewton:

So you think the number of converts is dropping? Are there any such stats on this sort of thing?

pnewton, that’s a good question. To get a good compilation of the stats on this sort of thing I would recommend the “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators” by Kenneth C. Jones.

Here is a quote from an interview of him:

Do the statistics show anything about the ordinary life of Catholics?

“In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms - converts - in 2002 there were 80,000.”

http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/interview_with_ken_jones.htm

The interview covers more statistics than that, of course.