Lati and pentecost

[henrikhank]

Pax et bonum!
I have some, maybe difficult, question:
At pentecost all the ifferent people, mostly Jews, in Jerusalem could hear the Apostles speak in their own tongue so why then should we use liturgical languages, like Latin or Greek, in the churches instead of vernacular if that’s what pentecost teach us?

 

[laszlo]

That was a miracle, an out of order event. It has nothing to do with the language of the Liturgy, which on that time was Hebrew. The miracle symbolized that the Good news is for everybody all over the world, refardless of the nationalities or religious beliefs. The message is the Ecumenism.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That was a miracle, an out of order event. It has nothing to do with the language of the Liturgy, which on that time was Hebrew. The miracle symbolized that the Good news is for everybody all over the world, refardless of the nationalities or religious beliefs. The message is the Ecumenism.

Ecumenism was made possible by the fact that each heard the good news in their native tongue. So as the op asks, shouldn’t each, everybody all over the world, hear the good news in their native tongue, through the Church Christ established and the Holy Spirit empowered at Pentecost?

 

[laszlo]

Ecumenism was made possible by the fact that each heard the good news in their native tongue.

Primarily the Ecumenism was made possible because Jesus Christ decided that the Gospel is to be announced for very nation w/o any distinction, and without any provileged position of any nation. He is the King, the decision-maker. The events followed His decision.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Primarily the Ecumenism was made possible because Jesus Christ decided that the Gospel is to be announced for very nation w/o any distinction, and without any provileged position of any nation. He is the King, the decision-maker. The events followed His decision.

And at Pentecost, it was His decision to let all hear the good news in their native tongue. That was done without any privileged position of any nation, but through His kingdom. It seems possible to me that using a specific language would give position to the nation of that language, especially if there are people present that do not speak that particular language. Maybe that was the influence in our Church that allows the use of the vernacular?

 

[Te_Deum]

Sure, you can have the Gospel in the vernacular… leave everything else in Latin. And I think you meant evangelism, not ecumenism.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sure, you can have the Gospel in the vernacular… leave everything else in Latin.

Why keep anything from the faithful through a lack of knowledge of what is being said?

 

[Te_Deum]

Why keep anything from the faithful through a lack of knowledge of what is being said?

God forbid the faithful put in a bit of effort and learn what “Ad deum qui laetificat juventutem meam” means.

It’s not about “keeping things from the faithful”. It’s about preserving the integrity of our liturgy and respecting the heritage of our Church. But even at that the faithful do not need to know every word of the liturgy. All they have to do is hear the Gospel (and at the vast majority of Latin Masses the Gospel is prayed in Latin and read in English) and understand the doctrine of the Most Holy Eucharist.

Active participation is what is needed from the faithful. Full and active participation. Of the the interior. Language is not a bar to that participation as it is in praying to the Father to accept the sacrifice Christ is making of Himself on the altar and receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

God forbid the faithful put in a bit of effort and learn what “Ad deum qui laetificat juventutem meam” means.

It’s not about “keeping things from the faithful”. It’s about preserving the integrity of our liturgy and respecting the heritage of our Church. But even at that the faithful do not need to know every word of the liturgy. All they have to do is hear the Gospel (and at the vast majority of Latin Masses the Gospel is prayed in Latin and read in English) and understand the doctrine of the Most Holy Eucharist.

Active participation is what is needed from the faithful. Full and active participation. Of the the interior.

Through the traditions of the Church the Mass became offered in the vernacular. What about the integrity of the Church’s authority to make such a decision?

Why wouldn’t the faithful need to know every word of the liturgy, if it was their native tongue that brought them to the, faith and, liturgy?

Full and active participation can come through the native tongue.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Why keep anything from the faithful through a lack of knowledge of what is being said?

Are you saying that the Church err for 2000 years in keeping the one holy language where Catholics go to and understand? you dont think people goes around and because the language changed all over Catholics are no longer interested in going to Mass when they travel because they cannot understand the language of that country. what benefit this has benefit? not Catholics that is for sure. wake up! we have lost many Catholics because they move to another country and they cannot find one common language and they just give up.

 

[Te_Deum]

Through the traditions of the Church the Mass became offered in the vernacular.

Okay… what?

What about the integrity of the Church’s authority to make such a decision?

And I have not denied the absolute authority of Rome to alter the liturgy. But keep a couple of things in mind… firstly that the liturgy that the Ordinary Form replaced as the ordinary celebration of the Roman Rite was the product of an organic development from the day of the Last Supper that had contributions from some of the finest saints and scholars of the Church and any approach to the liturgy must be made with this in mind.

Secondly the calls from Rome for the consideration of introducing the vernacular was never intended to have Latin completely eliminated from our liturgy (which is essentially has been). Latin was to retain pre-eminence.

Why wouldn’t the faithful need to know every word of the liturgy

Why do the faithful need to know every word of the liturgy? Why can’t the faithful put a little bit of effort into learning the Ordinary of Mass which pertains to them? Why can’t the laity use a missal for the Propers?

Furthermore why is there an almost perverse obsession amongst certain types to blur the lines between the laity and the clergy?

if it was their native tongue that brought them to the, faith and, liturgy?

You mean no one ever converted to the Catholic Faith prior to 1962?

Full and active participation can come through the native tongue.

I am not denying that. I am saying that it is equally true that full and active participation does not require the vernacular.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you saying that the Church err for 2000 years in keeping the one holy language where Catholics go to and understand? you dont think people goes around and because the language changed all over Catholics are no longer interested in going to Mass when they travel because they cannot understand the language of that country. what benefit this has benefit? not Catholics that is for sure. wake up! we have lost many Catholics because they move to another country and they cannot find one common language and they just give up.

No I did not say, or imply, the Church was in error. I did however note the Church’s authority to change to the vernacular, for which I see as beneficial to widespread sharing the good news.

I did not say, or imply, that I thought people are no longer interested in going to Mass. I have attended the Hispanic Mass, because of it being the only available Mass due to work requirements.

Now, when the Mass is in my native tongue I am more focused on the entirety of the Mass. I am only speaking for myself. Having attended the Latin Mass, and the Hispanic Mass, I find myself trying to keep up with where we are in the Mass, especially in the Hispanic Mass where the entire Mass is foreign to me.

As it is right now, there are many who do not speak the ‘common language’ of Latin, including many priests. There is no unification present in these instances, no matter where you attend Mass. If I were to move to another country, which I do not see but if I did, I would assume that I would be learning the language in that country and thereby find some understanding of the Mass. Who moves to another country and does not plan on communication with the people they live with? I cannot see that example as ‘running’ Catholics out of the Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And I have not denied the absolute authority of Rome to alter the liturgy. But keep a couple of things in mind… firstly that the liturgy that the Ordinary Form replaced as the ordinary celebration of the Roman Rite was the product of an organic development from the day of the Last Supper that had contributions from some of the finest saints and scholars of the Church and any approach to the liturgy must be made with this in mind.

Secondly the calls from Rome for the consideration of introducing the vernacular was never intended to have Latin completely eliminated from our liturgy (which is essentially has been). Latin was to retain pre-eminence.

Do you think the Lord spoke ‘Latin’ at the last supper? At what point did Latin become the language, and was it the most widespread language of those times? I think these are very important considerations in these discussions.

Even though it’s not ‘ex-cathedra’, the use of the vernacular is accepted by the Church, just as it’s not ‘ex-cathedra’ that Latin be used in every Mass. The point being, the vernacular is acceptable, for the time being until the Church decides it’s not and makes the appropriate changes.

Why do the faithful need to know every word of the liturgy? Why can’t the faithful put a little bit of effort into learning the Ordinary of Mass which pertains to them? Why can’t the laity use a missal for the Propers?

I converted in 1985, and the Church was using the full vernacular. For me, the conversion would have been much slower, or might not have happened at all, if I did not understand what was happening. I see the same problems existing in the evangelization of others.

Furthermore why is there an almost perverse obsession amongst certain types to blur the lines between the laity and the clergy?

How is what I’m saying ‘blurring’ the lines between laity and clergy? I accept what the Church finds acceptable. Others are trying to get the Church to reverse it’s decision. Seems to me the latter is ‘blurring’.

You mean no one ever converted to the Catholic Faith prior to 1962?

I don’t know how you got that, but going back to Pentecost the conversions came through their understanding in their native tongue. I’m sure there were conversions prior to 1962, but how many more, or less, would have happened if the Mass was in the native tongue?

I am not denying that. I am saying that it is equally true that full and active participation does not require the vernacular.

From my own experience, I find more focus on the Mass when it’s in my native tongue.

Don’t mistake my comments on this thread. As a Catholic I am prepared to follow it’s instructions. If the Latin Mass is available, and one prefers that, then by all means they should attend it. But why would someone with that preference want to make it so in every Catholic Church in the world, against the wishes of those who find the vernacular much more fulfilling, in focus and their own participation?

 

[Patchunky]

Are you saying that the Church err for 2000 years in keeping the one holy language where Catholics go to and understand?.

Actually, there are 4 languages of the Church, Latin is but one of them.

 

[henrikhank]

Pax et bonum!
Personaly I am for liturgical languages but I see some problems with them.
The Melkite Liturgy with Arabic (some Greek and Swedish) is really Awesome. Originaly the Melkites celebrated the Syrian Liturgy but then changed to the Byzantine so their culture is made for Arabic and therefore this language is fitting for their Liturgy.
The Coptic Orthodoxes say their Liturgy in Arabic with some Coptic and Greek (and sometimes Swedish). In monasteries they use only Coptic and Greek I think.
For the Copts Arabic is not their language. They were forced to speak Arabic so they shoul use less Arabic and more Coptic but the priests use much Arabic so the laity can understand the prayers. Coptic (there were of course different dialects) was actually spoken by the all the Copts in Egpt until the invasion.
Here in Sweden Latin was never spoken as a day to day language. Latin was used to destroy the pagan culture and language. It was used by the church even though the laity had a dificult time understanding it.
There are so many people who follow a Liturgy that came from a culture different from their own. If you take the Scandinavians for example. The Roman Catholic culture became a part of our culture so when I hear Gregorian chant I feel like it was (and is) a part of our culture. But it’s very odd when the Tamils are Roman Catholics since it is very different from their culture. Gregorian chant and Latin may sound strange to them. Should they do their own version of the Roman rite or should they follow the Gregorian version. The St Thomas Christian have much more easier because they belong to a church that actually is more close to their culture.
But back to Latin.

If the Roman catholics wouln’t use varnicular we would be able to go anywhere in the world were they celebrate the Roman rite and celebrate the same Mass. Then the problem would be that there are two version of the Roman Rites. Novus Ordo is often celebrated with different chants in the different places so we would not just have a language problem. In the medieval ages there must have been different ways of singing Gregorian chant and celebrating the Mass but that’s not the case with the 1962 Missal I think. But I must say that there have been some beuatiful Swish hymns written for Mass. but we can’t sing these hymns at a Catholic Latin Mass even though they are very beautiful.

At Pentecost the Apostles taught us about Unity and Liturgical languages can help us create unity but of course not always.
Gregorian music is made for Latin so to get maximum effect it must be sung in Latin.
One other reason for Latin is that it is a language that has a beautiful grammar and vocabulary. It is is easier to express religion in Latin than it is in Swedish or English.
I have heard that the Early translation to Latin was really bad sometimes but that was the old times I hope.
We must remember that the original language of the Roman rite was Greek, not Latin.
I guess that many people pray in vernacular since they think Jesus use Aramaic and Greek instead of Hebrew.

What do you think of this?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No one sees unity in the Church through the same liturgy, no matter what language it’s in?

 

[henrikhank]

No one sees unity in the Church through the same liturgy, no matter what language it’s in?

please explain.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

please explain.

Each Mass, the Catholic Church uses the same readings in every Catholic Church. We are unified by the readings, Gospel message, no matter what language the Mass happens to be in.

 

[henrikhank]

If you got two options: A conservative Novus Ordo Mass in Latin or the Tridentine Mass in vernacular. Which one would you choose?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If you got two options: A conservative Novus Ordo Mass in Latin or the Tridentine Mass in vernacular. Which one would you choose?

The Tridentine Mass.