Language

[oat_soda]

Obviously, Latin has a place in the Latin Church according to Vatican II (SC). You can’t deny that the council fathers wanted to maintain latin in the mass. Plus, the pope called for a wider application of latin in the mass (“the love of that language would grow ever strong among candidates for the priesthood”) and also the Tridentine Mass. unavoce.org/news/2002/pope_on_latin.html

bottom line, the pope wants it, as so did vatican II.

The problem you have now is everyone thinks the mass is all about the individual when it is really about worshiping God. God is first, neighbor second, and we are third. The educational aspect of the mass is secondary where the sacrifice of the eucharist is primary.

finally, who can really say that latin isn’t beautiful, especially when chanted? Doesn’t the worship of God deserve our best efforts? Why dumb it down to the lowest common denominator? English doesn’t compare to Latin chant. Not all languages are the same, while German may be good for yelling orders, it isn’t good for opera or singing. Latin is unchanging and the fact that it is ancient adds to the mystery of the mass. Think of all the benefits: you can learn another language, participate more fully in other countries, and have that continuity with the past. Plus you’ll do better on the SATs and GREs… etc.

 

[pnewton]

Brennan Doherty:

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

I guess we converts aren’t doing our job. I’ll work on it.

Why I do not think there is any casaulity behind the statistics (the other statistics quoted show similar trends, it does point out that Latin does not seem to deter conversion to Catholicism. However on a purely anecdotal note, I am very happy with the current Mass and glad I can understand it in my native tongue.

 

[kmktexas]

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?

So far noone in this thread is advocating “Latin only”. Even the TLM isn’t “Latin only” since the homily is in the vernacular and, while it’s possible, I have never heard of an Indult TLM where the readings weren’t also done in the vernacular. In any case, there isn’t any reason for RCIA to cover the TLM norms. It is enough to cover the norms of a currently normed Mass. I don’t know anyone that doesn’t know at least a few words of Latin. The only additional “training” needed would be to point out the correct pages in the Missals or Missalettes. The Missaletter publishers do a good job at hiding the Latin prayers but they are usually there somewhere in the back.

BTW, does RCIA usually cover how to say the prayers at Mass? The one at our parish is pretty much all catechesis and not how to say the prayers at Mass.

 

[otm]

kmktexas:

OTM,

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.

I disagree that there was a common language of Catholics, or even Roman Catholics. Prior to Vatican 2 the norm for teaching Latin was as a translated language, as opposed to a spoken language. As we grew closer to the time of Vatican 2, fewer and fewer schools were offering Latin as a language, and more and more were offering other languages, taught as a spoken language. The vast majority of Catholics, when asked, would tell you they knew little or nothing in Latin, other than what they had memorized rotely. And there were few who had taken enough Latin and stuck with it that they could actually translate anything ten years after they left school.

To call it a common language, IMO, is to say that they all understood it. They didn’t. There was a reason that many were saying the Rosary, or some other devotional prayers, during the Mass. In my way of thinking, that is a pretty poor excuse for the worship we do through the Mass. Missals were available, but if you have your nose down in the missal trying to follow along, the priest might as well be standing behind a screen, as per some of the Eastern rite churches.

 

[otm]

Brennan Doherty:

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.

You are correct about that point.
Brennan Doherty:

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?

That is fairly simple. The Church has tended, over the centuries, to move slowly. There were (and still are) opinions floating around that things were immutable; Latin being one of them. While there can be much discussion of how well things are translated, the response to the vernacular was and continues to be whole hearted and widespread. The reaction to the vernacular, I think, took many, if not most prelates by surprise. The fact that they were slow in terms of what they saw as the changes possible does not imply that changes should be limited to what was suggested.

Vatican 2 was not about programming every jot and tittle of every change that was to be made. It was a sweeping review of a number of areas, with the understanding that the details would be worked out subsequently. That everyone does not like how the details have evolved should surprise no one, particularly anyone with a knowledge of the history of the Church, particularly reforms made.
Brennan Doherty:

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.

And there has been more than one voice in history who has said that those in command are all too often so removed that they seem to have no knowledge of what the person in the pew is thinking. And we have seen that amply demonstrated by some of the clericalism that has surrounded the sexual abuse issues in the Church. I do not wish to be harsh with the Cardinals, but they are often so far removed from day to day Catholicism that one wonders if they get it. Too much Ivory Tower Syndrome.

 

[otm]

oat soda:

The problem you have now is everyone thinks the mass is all about the individual when it is really about worshiping God. God is first, neighbor second, and we are third. The educational aspect of the mass is secondary where the sacrifice of the eucharist is primary.

I really don’t see what this has to do with Latin/vernacular issues. Everyone I talk to who is going to Mass wants to worship, and they find that they participate more fully in that communal worship when it is in a language they understand. Mass is not something that is done to us. Mass is something we do in conjunction with the priest as Alter Christus. Using the vernacular is about worshiping God. The Eucharist is primary. It is not about education, it is about worship.
oat soda:

finally, who can really say that latin isn’t beautiful, especially when chanted? Doesn’t the worship of God deserve our best efforts? Why dumb it down to the lowest common denominator? English doesn’t compare to Latin chant. Not all languages are the same, while German may be good for yelling orders, it isn’t good for opera or singing. Latin is unchanging and the fact that it is ancient adds to the mystery of the mass. Think of all the benefits: you can learn another language, participate more fully in other countries, and have that continuity with the past. Plus you’ll do better on the SATs and GREs… etc.

I am not saying that Latin is not beautiful, but let’s tone down a little on the putdown on English. I am not ashamed of my language. As to SATs and GREs, I did just fine. And I took Latin in high school and college, and Hoeric and koinae Greek in high school. It didn’t hurt me a bit. And I love the Mass in English, and would never want to go back to the Mass in another language, particularly if I did not speak it. And as an aside, with all that Latin and Greek, I could not speak it conversationally.

 

[oat_soda]

As to SATs and GREs, I did just fine. And I took Latin in high school and college, and Hoeric and koinae Greek in high school. It didn’t hurt me a bit

that’s very nice, i didn’t.

and they find that they participate more fully in that communal worship when it is in a language they understand

again, it’s not about what you or i think, it’s what the church teaches. according to VII, latin is to be used in mass.

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

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 laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

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
no one here is saying only latin but latin AND english in the mass. the parts of the mass that don’t change: confetitor, sanctus, gloria, agnus dei, and the canon, can be said in latin. english should be used for the readings and the parts of the mass that change.

the Holy Father emphasized that Latin remains the official language of the Catholic Church, and expressed his desire that “the love of that language would grow ever strong among candidates for the priesthood.” The Pope’s message itself was written in Latin, and read by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican Secretary of State. Pope John XXIII wrote of the importance of Latin as an important part of “the patrimony of human civilization.” Pope John Paul underlined the same message, pointing out that the use of Latin “is an indispensable condition for a proper relationship between modernity and antiquity, for dialogue among different cultures, and for reaffirming the identity of the Catholic priesthood.”

unavoce.org/news/2002/pope_on_latin.html
given these are the words of two modern popes, i would think that we should take their opinon seriously.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It was suggested above that people “read” along the English prayers at the TLM, this is not praying, this is reading along.

It was also suggested that converts, and by extension everyday lay Catholics, do not need to know Latin, they only need to know the Latin of the Mass. This is also incorrect. If one does not know Latin then all they are doing is parroting the Latin, they have no understanding of it.

 

[mercygate]

ByzCath:

It was suggested above that people “read” along the English prayers at the TLM, this is not praying, this is reading along.

It was also suggested that converts, and by extension everyday lay Catholics, do not need to know Latin, they only need to know the Latin of the Mass. This is also incorrect. If one does not know Latin then all they are doing is parroting the Latin, they have no understanding of it.

Byz, This is so unlike you. Why is reading not praying? Why is understanding “Kyrie eleison” while not understanding the whole Bible in Greek, mere “parroting?” One does understand the meaning of fragments one learns in other languages. I sing in 11 different languages, and I know what the words of all the songs mean, even though I do not “know” the languages. Part of how one learns a language is through memorization. Consider it a step on the way. Consider it a broadening of understanding to work in different languages.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

mercygate:

Byz, This is so unlike you. Why is reading not praying? Why is understanding “Kyrie eleison” while not understanding the whole Bible in Greek, mere “parroting?” One does understand the meaning of fragments one learns in other languages. I sing in 11 different languages, and I know what the words of all the songs mean, even though I do not “know” the languages. Part of how one learns a language is through memorization. Consider it a step on the way. Consider it a broadening of understanding to work in different languages.

I will give into you on the “parroting” issue but I stand by my comment on reading along in English prayers that are in Latin. This is just reading, it is not praying.

I will add that I am against a Liturgy that is done wholly in a foreign language and do not throw out the Mass done in Spainish as this Mass is done for the Spainish speaking members of the parish.

 

[deogratias]

It was suggested above that people “read” along the English prayers at the TLM, this is not praying, this is reading along.

When did the Church decide that?

A Vademecum For Teachers of Religion by Sister Catherine Frederic, OSF and edited by the Right Reverend William F. Lawlor, LL.D - printed in 1948 and used extensively to teach school children about the Mass in the United States says this:

“However, there is no better or more correct way of assisting at Mass than by the use of the Missal. In this manner the faithful follow each action of the priest, recite excactly the same prayers with him, and thus identify themselves with our divine Lord, who is there and then acting as Priest according to the order of Melchisedech. The Church has permitted the sacred ritual of the Mass to be translated, and alllows the laity, as well as the clergy, to use a Missal. Through the use of the Missal the people not only enter into the spirit and meaning of the Sacrifice, but also accompany ever part with the words which the voice of the Church has declared to be best suited for the purpose”

This of course is in reference to the TLM but it clearly states that the intention of the translation was so we could “pray”, with the priest.

My Sunday Marian Missal, published in 1962 says -

"We share actively in the Mass when we repeat with the priest the very words and prayers of the divine sacrifice. That is why our Holy Father Pope Pius XII, declares, “those worthy of praise who, inspired by the purpose of enabling the Christian people to take part in the Eucharistic Sacrifice more easily and fruitfully, properly try to place the Roman missal in the hands of the people, so that the faithful, joined with the priest, may pray together with the same words as his, and with the same sentiments as those of the Church”. (Mediator Dei).

So while you may consider it reading, the Church considers it praying and so do I.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

deogratias:

My Sunday Marian Missal, published in 1962 says -

"We share actively in the Mass when we repeat with the priest the very words and prayers of the divine sacrifice. That is why our Holy Father Pope Pius XII, declares, "those worthy of praise who, inspired by the purpose of enabling the Christian people to take part in the Eucharistic Sacrifice more easily and fruitfully, properly try to place the Roman missal in the hands of the people, so that the faithful, joined with the priest, may pray together with the same words as his

, and with the same sentiments as those of the Church". (Mediator Dei).
So while you may consider it reading, the Church considers it praying and so do I.

I added a bold emphsis to the portion of your quote I am addressing.

See how it says “may pray together with the same words as his”.

Now when I talk about reading rather than praying I am addressing only the reading of the English side of the Latin-English Missal.

When you read the English side, and the prayer is in Latin (as everything is in the TLM) then you are not doing this. That is you are not praying together with the same words.

A translation is not the same words. A translation, by definition, is an interpretation and rewording of the foreign language. It is not a transliteration, which would still not be the same words as the words he (the priest) is using are Latin and the ones you are reading are English.

I am also providing a correction to something I said earlier (don’t get your hopes up, read the whole thing). I said that the TLM was celebrated in places in the venacular by a dispensation. The was incorrect.

The TLM was done in the venacular by papal indult. To be more specific, the TLM was in Slavonic in Bosnia and Dalmatia, in Greek in Calabria and Sicily, abd in Czech in Bohemia (there may have been more but these are the ones I have references to).

 

[mercygate]

ByzCath:

The TLM was done in the venacular by papal indult. To be more specific, the TLM was in Slavonic in Bosnia and Dalmatia, in Greek in Calabria and Sicily, abd in Czech in Bohemia (there may have been more but these are the ones I have references to).

Cool! Wish we could have it here in the U.S.!

 

[deogratias]

See how it says "may pray together with the same words as his

Nice try but since the Marian Missal is printed in English only - that won’t wash and since the little children taught by my other quote were not reading the Mass in Latin that won’t wash either.

The very reason for the Missals being published with the Venacular beside the Latin was for the reasons stated in Mediator Dei.

I was there, I remember and I still “pray” along with the priest. Reading a prayer is prayer if one’s disposition is to pray, not read and it is our spiritual desire to unite ourselves with Christ in this way as well as in reception of the Eucharist that makes it “prayer”.

 

[deogratias]

A translation is not the same words. A translation, by definition, is an interpretation and rewording of the foreign language. It is not a transliteration, which would still not be the same words as the words he (the priest) is using are Latin and the ones you are reading are English

Technically this is correct and a good friend of mine writes a column for the Wanderer called “What the Prayer Really Says”. These “translations” used in the Missal, however, are much closer to what the priest says than are the ICEL translations of the Missal used today.

For instance et cum spiritu tuo - does not say “and also with you” it says “and with your spirit” more closely translated.

Now I ask you, if I type the Pater Noster in Latin or in English, are we still praying the same Our Father and doesn’t Our Father know.

So while I give you we may not be using the “exact words” we are, nonetheless, praying and not just reading.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

deogratias,

While your last two replies raise a good and valid arguement, one I happen to disagree with, you can not use Mediator Dei (as referenced in your Missal) as it says specifically…(bold emphasis added)

1. Therefore, they are to be praised who, with the idea of getting the Christian people to take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass, strive to make them familiar with the “Roman Missal,” so that the faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church. They also are to be commended who strive to make the liturgy even in an external way a sacred act in which all who are present may share. This can be done in more than one way, when, for instance, the whole congregation, in accordance with the rules of the liturgy, either answer the priest in an orderly and fitting manner, or sing hymns suitable to the different parts of the Mass, or do both, or finally in high Masses when they answer the prayers of the minister of Jesus Christ and also sing the liturgical chant.

Now you may argue that the “sentiments” are the same regardless of language, but it does also say “very words”. The words in English are not the “very words”. They are translations.

Now I will add that Mediator Dei goes on to say…

1. Many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman missal even though it is written in the vernacular; nor are all capable of understanding correctly the liturgical rites and formulas. So varied and diverse are men’s talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.

Which shows that one can participate in the TLM by doing as was done in the past, doing other prayers (such as those listed in the Purgatorian Manual) or other devotions… But that is not necessary when the Mass is in the venacular.

I think I have made my point here and we seem to be going no where now so I think it is best if we just agree to disagree on the topic.

 

[deogratias]

I ageee to disagree.

 

[otm]

ByzCath:

It was suggested above that people “read” along the English prayers at the TLM, this is not praying, this is reading along.

It was also suggested that converts, and by extension everyday lay Catholics, do not need to know Latin, they only need to know the Latin of the Mass. This is also incorrect. If one does not know Latin then all they are doing is parroting the Latin, they have no understanding of it.

Amen, Amen, Amen!

People have a very interesting idea of what worship means. Some seem to have the idea that worship is what the priest does “for” us; and our mere presence is sufficient to be considered participation. And by analogy, this applies to “saying” prayers in a language one does not speak or understand. Listening to a choir chant, for example, a responsorial psalm in Latin can be quite beautiful; but to say that I am praying it with them, or even meditating on it as they sing it, is facetious unless I understand what the are singing.
Thus we go to a missal with a translation; and I go back to my analogy of listening to an opera with the text in English; I am trying to do two things at once; pray along, and listen to a different, and not understood, language.
I think we are confusing the thrill of listening to beautiful music with prayer, and remarking it to be more spiritual because of our emotional reaction to the music. I am not condemning the thrill. But I do not see Latin as being truly helpful in eliciting full participation in the Mass.

I’ll repeat: I went to a Mass sung in 4 part harmony in Latin (Palistrina was the composer - however you spell his name) by a choir with an international reputation. It was drop-dead gorgeous. But I had an intense feeling of being at a concert, not a Mass.