Latin? In MY Mass?

[malphono]

Please provide the source where Pope Benedict mandated that Bishops train all seminarians in Latin.

And of course there is also the CIC (emphasis added):

Can. 249 The program of priestly formation is to provide that students not only are carefully taught their native language but also understand Latin well and have a suitable understanding of those foreign languages which seem necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of pastoral ministry.

 

[malphono]

Hmmm…I have to admit, I didn’t know that was there. But it doesn’t entirely answer the point, because it does not say that Pope Benedict has made saying Mass in Latin a requirement for ordination, which was the original claim.

If it meant that, surely it would say that? ‘Well-versed in Latin’ is not the same as ‘be able to say Mass in Latin’, still less is it ‘Candidates must show they can say Mass in Latin before being ordained’.

Let’s put it this way: if a priest were “well-versed” in Latin, offering Mass (whether the EF or even the OF) would not present any problem at all. It’s not rocket-science to be able to interpret the rubrics and the prayers.

 

[ProVobis]

POPE ENCOURAGES THE STUDY OF LATIN

VATICAN CITY, FEB 22, 2006 (VIS) - At the end of the general audience, the Pope addressed a greeting in Latin to students at the faculty of Christian and Classical Literature of the Pontifical Salesian University in Rome.

“My predecessors rightly encouraged the study of [this] great language,” said the Pope in Latin, “in order to achieve a better understanding of the sound doctrine contained in the ecclesiastical and humanistic disciplines. In the same way, we encourage the continuation of this activity, so that as many people as possible may perceive the importance of this treasure and attain it.” VIS 060222

adoremus.org/Latin-Prayers.html

 

[Brendan]

JimR-OCDS;7431587:

Brendan;

No he can’t. He must be properly trained in saying Mass in Latin,

Note that that applies to the recitation of the ExtraOrdinary Form of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal, the Ordinary Form 2002 Missal is not affected by that regulation.

Certainly,

SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS

In the Latin original, the “I ask” is in the Royal imperative (petimus). It is a command. (yet one way in which Latin IS more precise, English lacks an imperative sense.)

As part of that, the Directory on the Formation of Priests was modified to require both the equivelent of 2 years of Latin instruction, as well as liturgical pratica on saying the Ordinary Form of the Mass in Latin.

I would also like to call to your attention that Pope Benedicts instruction to the faithful included that the "better known prayers of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin.

Are you really going to say that the Pope is somehow mistaken on this matter?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

JimR-OCDS;7431587:

Brendan;

No he can’t. He must be properly trained in saying Mass in Latin,

Note that that applies to the recitation of the ExtraOrdinary Form of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal, the Ordinary Form 2002 Missal is not affected by that regulation.

Certainly,

SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS

In the Latin original, the “I ask” is in the imperative. It is a command. (yet one way in which Latin IS more precise, English lacks an imperative sense.)

As part of that, the Directory on the Formation of Priests was modified to require both the equivelent of 2 years of Latin instruction, as well as liturgical pratica on saying the Ordinary Form of the Mass in Latin.

I would also like to call to your attention that Pope Benedicts instruction to the faithful included that the "better known prayers of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin.

Are you really going to say that the Pope is somehow mistaken on this matter?

Note that he didn’t mandate it he asked, imperitive is yours, and the purpose in SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS as he states, is for where the liturgy is celebrated with large international gatherings.

Jim

 

[MarkThompson]

In the Latin original, the “I ask” is in the imperative. It is a command. (yet one way in which Latin IS more precise, English lacks an imperative sense.)

You’re mistaken. The Latin says
In universum petimus ut futuri sacerdotes, inde a Seminarii tempore, ad Sanctam Missam Latine intellegendam et celebrandam nec non ad Latinos textus usurpandos et cantum Gregorianum adhibendum instituantur,
so if you extract the grammatical structure it’s “petimus ut futuri sacerdotes . . . instituantur” (“we ask that future priests be instructed”). Petimus ut + subjunctive is not an imperative, nor is the sentence even a command, since in context the choice of peto as opposed to something like impero (or futuri sacerdotes instituendi sunt) connotes an earnest request rather than an order given from above; this is just an ordinary subjunctive way of stating a request. Actually the passive imperative (“Be instructed!”) is rare, and its form here, for the second person plural, would be instituimini, which is also the form of the present passive indicative.

Also, English does not lack an imperative. In English we can either say with the subjunctive “I ask that future priests be instructed in Latin,” or we can demand in the imperative, “To future priests, I say: be instructed in Latin!” Of course, that’s a strange thing to say, but “get instructed” might provide the proper nuance.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m not sure I know what you’re trying to sell here. A translation is never as good as the original. It seems as if you’re compromising a certain degree of truth (and universality) for convenience. Not to mention that you are totally at the mercy of a third-party translator, quite possibly an iconoclast (Cardinal Arinze’s word), though you (falsely) perceive your understanding coming directly from the original.

Communication is when the thought is conveyed. A translation can be as good or even better than the original. Some languages have developed specific words or expressions to describe objects or emotions or anything else. What is true is the intent of the person who originally conveyed the message or thought cannot be accurately translated by another. I can give an original message in Filipino, and accurately translate it into English and still be accurate with my thoughts and intentions. The same is for the Church. The Liturgy is hers, even if she promulgates in Latin, she can translate into any language and keep the same intention of Liturgy because the Liturgy comes from her.

If I were put into the position you describe I would still ask to see the Chinese. It gives it some authenticity, even if you can’t read it. You can always study it later if you have a curious mind. If you don’t then, just like in math or science, you probably don’t care much for the truth anyway.

Authenticity to what? You can’t read it, its of no value to you. Staring at it for hours won’t suddenly translate it to english. We go to Mass to praise and worship God, not to go to a foreign language class. If one has appreciation for Latin, then by all means have a Latin Mass. But don’t force the Latin on those who doesn’t have appreciation for it. The Church doesn’t, why should you?

 

[Brendan]

You’re mistaken. .

Not quite.

Here is Father Zuhldorf on the subject. He was Cardinal Ratzingers secretary, as well as a Latin scholar.

Here is his translation

STRICT ENGLISH RENDERING

1. … In general, We require that future priests, from the time of Seminary onward, be trained to understand and celebrate Holy Mass in Latin as well as to employ Latin texts and use Gregorian chant; nor should great effort be neglected in regard to the faithful themselves, so that they learn thoroughly the commonly known prayers in the Latin language and in an equal degree that they should learn the Gregorian chant of those parts of the liturgy which are sung

wdtprs.com/blog/2007/03/exhortation-knowing-and-using-latin/

 

[ProVobis]

Thanks, Brendan. This reinforces the decrees and commands stated in Veterum Sapientia:

With the foregoing considerations in mind, to which We have given careful thought, We now, in the full consciousness of Our Office and in virtue of Our authority, decree and command the following:…

1. Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.

1. In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.
   …
2. As is laid down in Canon Law (can. 1364) or commanded by Our Predecessors, before Church students begin their ecclesiastical studies proper they shall be given a sufficiently lengthy course of instruction in Latin by highly competent masters, following a method designed to teach them the language with the utmost accuracy. …

We wish the same rule to apply to those whom God calls to the priesthood at a more advanced age, and whose classical studies have either been neglected or conducted too superficially. No one is to be admitted to the study of philosophy or theology except he be thoroughly grounded in this language and capable of using it.
…
4. Wherever the study of Latin has suffered partial eclipse through the assimilation of the academic program to that which obtains in State public schools, with the result that the instruction given is no longer so thorough and well-grounded as formerly, there the traditional method of teaching this language shall be completely restored. Such is Our will, and there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind about the necessity of keeping a strict watch over the course of studies followed by Church students; and that not only as regards the number and kinds of subjects they study, but also as regards the length of time devoted to the teaching of these subjects.

Should circumstances of time and place demand the addition of other subjects to the curriculum besides the usual ones, then either the course of studies must be lengthened, or these additional subjects must be condensed or their study relegated to another time.
…
5. In accordance with numerous previous instructions, the major sacred sciences shall be taught in Latin, which, as we know from many centuries of use, "must be considered most suitable for explaining with the utmost facility and clarity the most difficult and profound ideas and concepts."16 For apart from the fact that it has long since been enriched with a vocabulary of appropriate and unequivocal terms, best calculated to safeguard the integrity of the Catholic faith, it also serves in no slight measure to prune away useless verbiage.

Hence professors of these sciences in universities or seminaries are required to speak Latin and to make use of textbooks written in Latin. If ignorance of Latin makes it difficult for some to obey these instructions, they shall gradually be replaced by professors who are suited to this task. Any difficulties that may be advanced by students or professors must be overcome by the patient insistence of the bishops or religious superiors, and the good will of the professors.

A Latin Academy

1. Since Latin is the Church’s living language, it must be adequate to daily increasing linguistic requirements. It must be furnished with new words that are apt and suitable for expressing modern things, words that will be uniform and universal in their application. and constructed in conformity with the genius of the ancient Latin tongue. Such was the method followed by the sacred Fathers and the best writers among the scholastics.

To this end, therefore, We commission the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities to set up a Latin Academy staffed by an international body of Latin and Greek professors. The principal aim of this Academy – like the national academies founded to promote their respective languages – will be to superintend the proper development of Latin, augmenting the Latin lexicon where necessary with words which conform to the particular character and color of the language.

It will also conduct schools for the study of Latin of every era, particularly the Christian one. The aim of these schools will be to impart a fuller understanding of Latin and the ability to use it and to write it with proper elegance. They will exist for those who are destined to teach Latin in seminaries and ecclesiastical colleges, or to write decrees and judgments or conduct correspondence in the ministries of the Holy See, diocesan curias, and the offices of religious orders.
…

 

[Brendan]

Here is the USCCB Directive on the eduction of priestly canidates

usccb.org/vocations/ProgramforPriestlyFormation.pdf

1. A knowledge of Latin and the biblical languages is foundational and should be given the emphasis that church teaching accords it.122 Particular attention must be given to ensure that before entering the theologate all seminarians can demonstrate that they have acquired that “knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and
   make use of the sources of so many sciences and the documents of the Church,” according to the insistence of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council.123

119 See CIC, c. 250; CCEO, c. 348§1.
120 See Pastores dabo vobis, no. 56, and Fides et ratio, no. 62.
121 See CIC, c. 251; CCEO, c. 349.
122 See Optatam totius, no. 13; CIC, c. 249.
123 Optatam totius, no. 13.

So, at the very least, a seminarian is required to have sufficent understanding of Latin so that he can understand the Church documents that have been written in Latin. And to do so by the completion of his Philosophical (undergrad) years.

If so, he cannot be admitted into the Theological ( M.Div) phase of the seminary.

 

[Frosty]

Not quite.

Here is Father Zuhldorf on the subject. He was Cardinal Ratzingers secretary, as well as a Latin scholar.

Um . . . exactly when was Fr.Z Cardinal Ratzinger’s secretary? I’m sure that would be news to Bishop Josef Clemens who was the Cardinal"s secretary from 1984 -2003 or Monsignor Georg Ganswein who has been his secretary since then.
As for being a Latin scholar

 

[japhy]

‘Well-versed in Latin’ is not the same as ‘be able to say Mass in Latin’, still less is it ‘Candidates must show they can say Mass in Latin before being ordained’.

Anybody want to guess what Vatican II said about priests and Latin?

Anybody?

Remember, this is what Vatican II said about the laity and Latin: “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.” (SC 54) And Jim asked, who would teach the faithful to do this?

Well, the clergy could have helped catechize the faithful in this way. Because the clergy already knew the Latin of the Mass!

So, what did Vatican II say about clergy and Latin, knowing that the vernacular was going to be permitted in the Mass?

This is what the Council Fathers said about future clergy (i.e. seminarians) and Latin:
Before beginning specifically ecclesiastical subjects, seminarians should be equipped with that humanistic and scientific training which young men in their own countries are wont to have as a foundation for higher studies. Moreover they are to acquire a knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the sources of so many sciences and of the documents of the Church. The study of the liturgical language proper to each rite should be considered necessary; a suitable knowledge of the languages of the Bible and of Tradition should be greatly encouraged. (Optatam Totius 13)
That document is the decree on priestly training.

 

[MarkThompson]

Not quite.

Here is Father Zuhldorf on the subject. He was Cardinal Ratzingers secretary, as well as a Latin scholar.

Here is his translation

STRICT ENGLISH RENDERING

1. … In general, We require that future priests, from the time of Seminary onward, be trained to understand and celebrate Holy Mass in Latin as well as to employ Latin texts and use Gregorian chant; nor should great effort be neglected in regard to the faithful themselves, so that they learn thoroughly the commonly known prayers in the Latin language and in an equal degree that they should learn the Gregorian chant of those parts of the liturgy which are sung

wdtprs.com/blog/2007/03/exhortation-knowing-and-using-latin/

Um, that rendering isn’t an imperative either. For those who don’t know exactly what the imperative in Latin looks like, it’s this.

As to what level of force is connoted by the verb peto, unfortunately the word is vague enough that it covers a spectrum of meanings which you can review here under II.B. In my experience, peto + noun usually carries the sense indicated in II.B.2.a, while peto ut + subjunctive more commonly expresses the senses shown in II.B.2.b. Really, there’s no way to tell precisely what was meant without reference to context (even then, it’s still somewhat ambiguous), and, in the context of orders given by a Supreme Pontiff, peto is among the mildest verbs one might choose. IOW, if you wanted to express that it is a command, you probably would have picked a different verb.

 

[ProVobis]

From Program of Priestly Formation by the Catholic Church, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2006

1. The curriculum of studies of college seminarians must include a grounding in the liberal arts and sciences, including studies in the humanities. Special attention is to be given to classical and foreign languages. A knowledge of Latin and the biblical languages is foundational and should be given the emphasis that the Church accords it. Particular attention must be given to ensure that before entering the theologate all seminarians can demonstrate that they have acquired that "knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of so many scientific sources and of the documents of the Church," according to the insistence of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council. The study of Spanish language and Hispanic cultures as well as other pastorally appropriate languages and cultures is recommended. In some case, an English Language Program (ELP) may form an important part of the program. Since preaching is at the heart of priestly ministry, college seminarians should include courses in writing and speech.

 

[Brendan]

As to what level of force is connoted by the verb peto, unfortunately the word is vague enough that it covers a spectrum of meanings which you can review

Perhaps then, we can consult with someone who is not only very familar with Latin, but with an intimate knowledge of Pope Benedict’s writing style; a former personal secretary of his for example ? Oh wait, I already did that

 

[ProVobis]

A translation can be as good or even better than the original.

Almost mathematically impossible. Many words have multiple meanings and even a couple of translated words can almost completely corrupt the meanings of the untranslated phrase. Or at least reduce the odds of correct translation, if there is such a thing. And this doesn’t even take into account implications. (We can’t even agree on whether the Pope said “must” or “should.”) Even having to paraphrase within one language changes meanings so that one can understand better. Words and tones and the order of them do matter.

Some languages have developed specific words or expressions to describe objects or emotions or anything else.

And that’s why things are better left untranslated. Do you know the 2007 Summorum Pontificum is still left untranslated on the Vatican website, except for Hungarian (which is strange)? Perhaps they didn’t want to risk or be responsible for more mistranslations into English?

What is true is the intent of the person who originally conveyed the message or thought cannot be accurately translated by another.

And as time goes on, the translation becomes even more distorted. That’s the nature of languages, expecially those which are politically motivated such as English. Sexist and inclusive and second person language, for example, does not seem to be an issue in Latin or some other languages.

I can give an original message in Filipino, and accurately translate it into English and still be accurate with my thoughts and intentions.

That would be only from your standpoint, and only because you know both Filipino and English. I’ve tried many times translating Polish to English but then having to retranslate or paraphrase the translation.

The same is for the Church. The Liturgy is hers, even if she promulgates in Latin, she can translate into any language and keep the same intention of Liturgy because the Liturgy comes from her.

And she can change the translation anytime when she sees it doesn’t work.

Authenticity to what?

If nothing else, have a reference or standard. I can’t believe many quoting scripture as if it had originally been written in English 2000 years ago.

You can’t read it, its of no value to you.

And neither is a mistranslation, although you may not see it as such.

Staring at it for hours won’t suddenly translate it to english. We go to Mass to praise and worship God, not to go to a foreign language class. If one has appreciation for Latin, then by all means have a Latin Mass. But don’t force the Latin on those who doesn’t have appreciation for it. The Church doesn’t, why should you?

“Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit.” - Dom Prosper Gueranger

more on catholicapologetics.info/languages/why/latin.htm

 

[JimR-OCDS]

ProVobis

“Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit.” - Dom Prosper Gueranger

This was written in 1840 and in an entirely different context than what’s being discussed in this forum.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

This was written in 1840 and in an entirely different context than what’s being discussed in this forum.
Jim

Like the same principles don’t apply today? Methinks your arguments are based more on modern conveniences rather than trying to learn about the Catholic Mass and the mysteries surrounding it. Meet St. Ignore.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

ProVobis

Like the same principles don’t apply today?

No they do not.

Guéranger was responding to those who opposed liturgies especially the new Missal of Paul V in the beginning of the 19th century France, where not only anti-Liturgy, but anti-clergy had begun only to blossom 20 years later.

No one in this thread or in Catholic parishes around the USA, oppose the liturgy. Any opposition is against making the liturgy less understandable, which Latin certainly does
for the majority of Catholics.

Methinks your arguments are based more on modern conveniences rather than trying to learn about the Catholic Mass and the mysteries surrounding it.

Not the case at all.

My arguments are based on the fact that the Mass is for all, not just the intellectually astute who are more drawn to the asceticism aspects of the Mass instead of its intended purpose Christ gave it when He instituted the sacrament.

There is no one who would agree that Latin is as understandable for the average Catholic as his own native tongue.

If Latin were truly a sacred language, then the Church would mandate that all prayer be said in Latin.

But she doesn’t because when a person prays, they say the words and absorb their fullest meaning in their own language.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with people who like Latin in the Mass, and who want to participate in Mass with Latin, whether the EF or OF.

My problem is the constant badgering and attitude that anything other than Latin is less than reverent and less sacred.

Jim

 

[ConstantineTG]

Almost mathematically impossible. Many words have multiple meanings and even a couple of translated words can almost completely corrupt the meanings of the untranslated phrase. Or at least reduce the odds of correct translation, if there is such a thing. And this doesn’t even take into account implications. (We can’t even agree on whether the Pope said “must” or “should.”) Even having to paraphrase within one language changes meanings so that one can understand better. Words and tones and the order of them do matter.

But there is still equivalency in words. You cannot say mathematically impossible because language lacks the absoluteness of numerical values. A word today can have a different meaning 50 years from now. 5 will always be 5. Words do not have values attached to them, only meanings. And meanings can and do change.

Again, language is a means of a common expression of thought. If the conveyor of thought is familiar enough with one language then the same thought can be expressed accurately in another language.

And that’s why things are better left untranslated. Do you know the 2007 Summorum Pontificum is still left untranslated on the Vatican website, except for Hungarian (which is strange)? Perhaps they didn’t want to risk or be responsible for more mistranslations into English?

There are many things left untranslated in the Vatican website. But it will be translated anyway for people to understand it. Unless all the Latin Bishops around the world have excellent command of Latin, it will be translated regardless.

Even in a Latin Mass, it is translated in the Missal. Most of you who attend regularly don’t even have the deeper appreciation of the Latin besides what is in the Missal.

And as time goes on, the translation becomes even more distorted. That’s the nature of languages, expecially those which are politically motivated such as English. Sexist and inclusive and second person language, for example, does not seem to be an issue in Latin or some other languages.

You’ll be suprised how sexist or even more precise some languages are. I’m sure you’re familiar with the Petros vs. Petra argument regarding Peter. Thats a sexist language. In China, there’s a specific word for every one in the family. There’s a word for first son, second son, first daughter, second daughter. Even for the children there’s a specific word for each of the younger and each of the older. To claim Latin is superior to other language is a fallacy. Each language has its own advantages and disadvantages over the other. Language develops from use and from the expression of a culture. Words are made because the culture needs to express it that way. Many words are added to the English language all the time.

That would be only from your standpoint, and only because you know both Filipino and English. I’ve tried many times translating Polish to English but then having to retranslate or paraphrase the translation.

I’m hardly the translation expert, but many people who have a good command of several languages will be able to express the same thought accurately in several language. Filipino and English are not very compatible. Every Filipino you see with bad English is not a result of poor English education, we are all educated in English. The problem is that many translate word-for-word but the difference in languages go beyond that. Once you understand that language construction is different in English and Filipino, then you can better translate. I practice a lot even before I moved to Canada because I need it for my job.

And she can change the translation anytime when she sees it doesn’t work.

Definitely. We shouldn’t think that language should be locked in. Again, what is language other than a means for communication, for conveying thought. If the current language isn’t working anymore, you should say it in another way, so to speak.

If nothing else, have a reference or standard. I can’t believe many quoting scripture as if it had originally been written in English 2000 years ago.

I agree. I also did agree in another thread that Latin is indeed a good standard to be translating from. What I don’t agree is keeping it in Latin all the time. Latin should be the baseline language in the Roman Church. Then you can translate to any language from there.

And neither is a mistranslation, although you may not see it as such.

True, at this point you have to trust the translator, or the person speaking. If I say something to you in Filipino and you don’t understand, and I say again in English, you have to trust that what I told you is the same thing, because I’m expressing that same thought to you in a different language. The English in Mass is given to us by the Church, or at least approved by the Church. If you think about it, does the Latin-English Missals have recognitio by the Holy See? Wouldn’t the English promulgation of the OF be more trustworthy just because the Church herself gave it her stamp of approval?

“Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit.” - Dom Prosper Gueranger

more on catholicapologetics.info/languages/why/latin.htm

Hatred is a strong language. I don’t hate Chinese but I wouldn’t want to be in a Chinese restaurant with Chinese-only menu. Trust me I’ve been to China and Hong Kong, you wouldn’t want to be there. But that doesn’t mean I hate Chinese.