Latin? In MY Mass?

[ConstantineTG]

The precision of our language as to the exclusion or inclusion of the other 22 rites of the Catholic Church have nothing to do with this thread or it’s topic.

Oh and Constantine your are irrisistible!

LOL

But seriously, saying the language is universal in the Church may give the wrong impressions that every Catholic parish in the planet is linked to the use of Latin. Sure you know the context of what you speak of, but others may not. Many come to these forums not knowing anything about the faith. Its best everyone is properly catechized even with such intricacies.

 

[Brendan]

BTW, in my dioceses, the approved missals used by the majority of the parishes, have no Latin in them whatsoever.

So, there isn’t going to be any Latin used unless the Bishop approves text that have it and parishes opt to purchase them.

That is true for all vernacular languages, since each one is actually an indult. But Latin is the universal Norm.

Any priest can say the Mass in Latin at any time. And actually, your bishop is currently training all his seminarians to say the Mass in Latin. Pope Benedict made that a requirement for ordination.

 

[ProVobis]

That is why I ask that we keep our use of words precise.

That’s probably one of the best reasons for keeping the Mass in Latin.

Quoting from Veterum Sapientia again:

…
Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.
…

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s probably the best reason for keeping the Mass in Latin.

Quoting from Veterum Sapientia again:

Sadly I cannot win more money from my self. But I did make a bet with myself that you’ll respond with this.

We can be precise with any language. Saying that Latin is the only language that is precise is not true. Every language can convey the precise thought of every person.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That is true for all vernacular languages, since each one is actually an indult. But Latin is the universal Norm.

There are no indults on translations. Do you have a Church document or pronouncement to support this? Do you even know what an indult is?

 

[Timothy17]

EDIT : Deleted.

I have come too late to this thread, and frankly it appears to be going in the same direction threads as this one always seem to (i.e., nowhere).

Pax,
Tim

 

[MarkThompson]

We can be precise with any language. Saying that Latin is the only language that is precise is not true. Every language can convey the precise thought of every person.

Yes and no. Latin is actually a pretty imprecise language, with a small and fairly limited vocabulary, no articles, some confusing characteristics like words that are the same in the singular and the plural (same as English fish and sheep, but with the ability to say a fish), and a few grammatical cases forced to do the work that other languages express with a broad wealth of prepositions, adverbial phrases, and the like. Don’t get me wrong, Latin is a totally workable language for general use, but it has no claim whatsoever to great precision in the face of richer languages like English.

 

[ProVobis]

There are sacred words, but its the meaning that makes them sacred, not the language used to express them.

Actually that’s a good argument in keeping the Mass as it was promulgated in Latin, since any translation is at high risk to change those meanings as they were intended. For example, “one in being with the Father” for consubstantialem Patri. Anyone who’s ever been in the business of translating could tell you the difficulties in preserving the exact (and sacred, where applicable) meaning of the original.

 

[ProVobis]

Every language can convey the precise thought of every person.

Then why change the language if it’s already precise per the Church? And why do I end up with different meanings in the Polish and English translations, for example? If “Sursum corda/Habemus ad Dominum” have no lifting in their meanings, how do we end up with “lifting” of anything in our translations? There is none in Polish. Only that our hearts turn in an upward direction. Totally imprecise to have them lifted, but I’m sure I’ll be attacked on this.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then why change the language if it’s already precise per the Church? And why do I end up with different meanings in the Polish and English translations, for example? If “Sursum corda/Habemus ad Dominum” have no lifting in their meanings, how do we end up with “lifting” of anything in our translations? There is none in Polish. Only that our hearts turn in an upward direction. Totally imprecise to have them lifted, but I’m sure I’ll be attacked on this.

Communication is two ways, one who conveys the message, and the other who receives it. We translate for those who receive it. A Chinese man can perfectly made his thoughts know precisely in Chinese. But if he’s telling it to me, what use it is for me? Its not communication because the message was not received.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Brendan;

Any priest can say the Mass in Latin at any time.

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

§ 4 Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded.

He can’t just mimic the words in Latin.

And actually, your bishop is currently training all his seminarians to say the Mass in Latin. Pope Benedict made that a requirement for ordination.

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

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

Communication is two ways, one who conveys the message, and the other who receives it. We translate for those who receive it. A Chinese man can perfectly made his thoughts know precisely in Chinese. But if he’s telling it to me, what use it is for me? Its not communication because the message was not received.

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.

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.

 

[paperwight66]

Brendan;

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

Jim

Yes, I’d be interested to see that source, too. Over to you, Brendan.

Incidentally, someone previously said that there are 22 rites. This is not correct. There are 22 Churches called Catholic, but only 6 (or is it 7?) rites. The Ambrosian is the only one I can think of at the moment, apart from the Roman, of course.

 

[ProVobis]

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

He doesn’t have to. It’s written in the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 249 The Charter of Priestly Formation is to provide that the students are not only taught their native language accurately, but are also well versed in latin, and have a suitable knowledge of other languages which would appear to be necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of their pastoral ministry.

And on his most recent trip to the U.S. the Pope chastised Cardinal George for not including Latin in his mention of the languages that are used in the liturgy. ON NATIONAL TV!

 

[ProVobis]

There are 22 Churches called Catholic, but only 6 (or is it 7?) rites. The Ambrosian is the only one I can think of at the moment, apart from the Roman, of course.

Also Mozarbic, Braga, Dominican, Carthusian, Benedictine.

 

[ElizabethPH]

Yes, I’d be interested to see that source, too. Over to you, Brendan.

Incidentally, someone previously said that there are 22 rites. This is not correct. There are 22 Churches called Catholic, but only 6 (or is it 7?) rites. The Ambrosian is the only one I can think of at the moment, apart from the Roman, of course.

Thanks I appreciate that. I could say I mispoke, but it really comes down to I don’t know what I’m talking about.

 

[paperwight66]

He doesn’t have to. It’s written in the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

!

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’.

 

[malphono]

ProVobis;7431690:

Incidentally, someone previously said that there are 22 rites. This is not correct. There are 22 Churches called Catholic, but only 6 (or is it 7?) rites. The Ambrosian is the only one I can think of at the moment, apart from the Roman, of course.

Also Mozarbic, Braga, Dominican, Carthusian, Benedictine.

It’s a bit off-topic, but for the purpose of clarity, here’s a brief outline: the 6 Rites (or “families”) are Latin, Byzantine, Antiochene (West Syriac), Eddesan (East Syriac), Alexandrine, and Armenian. Each has variations within it.

The Latin includes the Roman, plus Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Bragan, Lyonais (which are “regional” or “territorial” Rites), Carthusian, Dominican, Carmelite, Cistercian, and Praemonstratentian (which are proper to Religious Orders). These are not Churches sui juris: all are Rites within the Latin Church.

The Byzantine includes Ukrainian, Greek, Melkite, Italo-Greek, Ruthenian, etc, Churches. Each is a Church sui juris.

The Antiochene includes the Syriac, Maronite, and Syro-Malankara Churches. Each is a Church sui juris.

The Edessan includes the Chaldean and Syro-Malabar. Each is a Church sui juris.

The Alexandrene includes the Coptic and Ethiopian Churches. Each is a Church sui juris.

The Armenian is only the Armenian, which is a Church sui juris.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan;

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

§ 4 Priests who use the **Missal of Bl. John XXIII **

 

[ProVobis]

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’.

Here is the “official” code. Interpret as you wish, but do ask yourself for whose and what purpose was it written.

Can. 249 - Institutionis sacerdotalis Ratione provideatur ut alumni non tantum accurate linguam patriam edoceantur, sed etiam linguam latinam bene calleant necnon congruam habeant cognitionem alienarum linguarum, quarum scientia ad eorum formationem aut ad ministerium pastorale exercendum necessaria vel utilis videatur.

calleo, -ui - a) to be thick-skinned, callous; b) to be clever, experienced, versed, skilful; c) to know by experience or practice.