E
EphelDuath
Guest
How can you believe in God if you can’t see everything He’s doing?
- Status
C
coachkfan1
Guest
I guess that I am speaking more about the understanding of what is happening not understanding the language itself. I could go to Spain or Italy and understand what is going on without understanding the words themselves. I suppose that I am speaking of poor Cathecezing (sp?) of the faithful.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
I agree, poor catechesis is the problem. Believe it or not though, as often as we are told that “nobody knew what was going on in the Mass before Vatican II”, there are huge swathes of evidence to indicate that even in the eras of mass illiteracy, people generally had a firm grasp of the Ordinary. It was the changing parts of the Holy Mass that people didn’t always understand – the Readings and the Propers.
Those were the parts that the Council Fathers of Vatican II intended to allow in the vernacular. The Ordinary was intended to be retained in Latin. Actually, there was a bishop at Vatican II that gave a speech where he worried that the Ordinary would be permitted in the vernacular – and he was laughed at! The bishops laughed at him. That’s totally preposterous, they said. That’ll never happen.
P
ProVobis
Guest
It is true, though, that at the time of St. Thomas More et al, there were some (such as Tyndale) who were burned at the stake for their translations of the Bible (and I suppose liturgy too to some extent.)
christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1501-1600/translator-william-tyndale-strangled-and-burned-11629961.html
greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html
Wrong though it may be to execute people today, nevertheless it does show (per Trent and Vatican II) the care that the Church takes in trying to preserve the true teachings of Christ and of the Mass among other things. For this reason, translations are usually risky to a certain extent and Latin is to be preserved in the Latin Rite (Veterum Sapientia, Vatican II, Jubilate Deo, Canon 249, etc.)
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
That’s correct. While the use of vernacular languages is now common, Latin is still occasionally used. I went to midnight Mass today, and we did the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, and some propers in Latin. Everything else was in English.
No. Why would it? Bibles and catechisms in vernacular languages have been available since the technology to mass-produce them was developed.
The 1960s, actually.
Generally, missals were available that had a side-by-side translation. Also, through repetition and learning you’d gradually come to understand what was being said.
There are many advantages to celebrating Mass in Latin (at least partially).
H
HB11
Guest
G
GangGreen
Guest
You more you attend the EF and the more you sit down and try to learn the prayers, the less you’ll need a missal (except for the changing parts of the Mass) and the more you can follow and understand what’s happening. Imagine having this as the only Mass you’ve known for your entire life. I’m sure at some point you’d try to learn the prayers or at the very least, you’d have your nose buried in your missal. Even still, throughout history there were many people who could not read and they still were able to follow along. It’s about being taught what’s happening.
It doesn’t matter what language the Mass is in… if no one teaches you what’s going on, then it won’t make any sense. I’m sure that there are plenty of people who go to Mass in the vernacular and have no real idea of what’s going on or why.
It doesn’t matter what language the Mass is in… if no one teaches you what’s going on, then it won’t make any sense. I’m sure that there are plenty of people who go to Mass in the vernacular and have no real idea of what’s going on or why.
N
Norm640
Guest
The mass was said in latin for one reason- the Church’s headquarters became Rome. If it stayed in the Middle East, the language would be quite different.
By the way, Jesus did not come down to earth and speak in code. He spoke simply and reached to all, so all would understand. That isn’t to say God isn’t complicated, but what it says is that the mass isn’t complicated on purpose.
Mass is a sacrifice, and also the highest form of worship in the world. It has to be understood by all as best as God allows. Otherwise, why have Apologetics. And people sincerely asking for help do not need to be belittled.
God doesn’t want a blind people swallowing whatever His Church says. If He wanted that He wouldn’t have let us have free will. And wouldn’t have allowed his only Son to lower himself to our level and die for us.
Dying for us- that is pretty simple to understand. Right?
By the way, Jesus did not come down to earth and speak in code. He spoke simply and reached to all, so all would understand. That isn’t to say God isn’t complicated, but what it says is that the mass isn’t complicated on purpose.
Mass is a sacrifice, and also the highest form of worship in the world. It has to be understood by all as best as God allows. Otherwise, why have Apologetics. And people sincerely asking for help do not need to be belittled.
God doesn’t want a blind people swallowing whatever His Church says. If He wanted that He wouldn’t have let us have free will. And wouldn’t have allowed his only Son to lower himself to our level and die for us.
Dying for us- that is pretty simple to understand. Right?
G
GangGreen
Guest
Jesus spoke the language of the people, but when he worshiped he did so in Hebrew, which was the language of the temple.
Language does not make one understand the Mass. Understanding the Mass comes from proper teaching. I can go to Mass and see all kinds of stuff, but if I’m not taught the significance of what is happening, then the words mean nothing to me. In the same way, if I’m taught the significance of what’s happening, I don’t really need to understand (linguistically) what’s happening and I’ll still understand what’s truly happening. If I go to Mass in Mexico tomorrow, I won’t understand a word, but I’ll still know what is going on and why.
Also, Jesus did speak in parable quite often, so he actually did speak in a way that wasn’t all that easy to understand for many. That’s why he had to teach his disciples on the side what these parables actually meant. “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
P
ProVobis
Guest
But Mass is something only a priest can offer by way of virtue of his power to consecrate and sacrifice to God’s complete satisfaction. We can’t do that. The words he uses are between him and God. We benefit from that. Do we need to understand them or even hear them to reap benefits? Well, do we need to understand how drugs or medical procedures work in order to be cured? Do we even need to see dentists drilling our teeth in order to alleviate a toothache? We just care that it works whatever they do. We have faith in our dentist, our doctor, etc. Shouldn’t we have even more faith in what the priest does for us? Seems like many have since the Roman Canon was first written in the early centuries starting with the Latin words “Te igitur clementissime…” Look in the 750 AD Missal, for example, and you’ll find those very words. Now granted this is not the only possible formula for the sacrifice of the Mass but do we really want to discard it altogether, which is essentially what we have done? It certainly wasn’t wrong if it spread and reinforced Christianity in the West for over 1600 years and brought Catholicism this far.
B
Brendan
Guest
Everything that you mentioned falls into the realm of Catechesis, not vernacular liturgy.
Yes, everyone should have a deep understanding of what the Mass entails, it’s elements, their liturgical and theological significance.
But none of that requires the liturgy to be in any particular language, vernacular or otherwise.
I could be at a Mass that was said in Vietnamese or any other language. My understanding of the Mass would not change, as my understanding of the Mass came from the Catechism, the GIRM and Scripture, all of which are where my understanding of the Mass should have come from
E
EphelDuath
Guest
I don’t disagree. What I disagree with is the general misconception that hearing the words in your own language is the only possible way to understand something.
I think a priest in an ornate Roman chasuble censing the altar, facing the crucifix, praying in a sacred language in a low tone, while Gregorian chant is sung from the loft like the voices of angels, and then the priest lifting the Most Sacred Host and genuflecting before it, is a much greater indication that Our Lord has become flesh than any words that I understand from his mouth. This is true in both the OF and the EF. The words “This is my Body” don’t tell me much if the priest isn’t acting like it is the Lord.
While I was becoming Catholic, and even a short time after my baptism, I didn’t even know Mass was a sacrifice. The text of the OF is more concerned with the congregational aspect of the Mass. The first time I went to the EF, even though I didn’t know what was going on (I was helplessly lost in the pamphlet), I instantly knew that Christ was the one offered on the altar.
I’m not saying the EF is better than the OF, or the OF is bad, or anything like that. If done correctly, the OF should be very much like the Tridentine Mass. Really my point is that being told something is not necessarily a better way to understand something, than it being demonstrated.
L
lifllelovepeace
Guest
I don’t quite understand. Are you saying the mass should not be said in Latin because people do not understand it?
if that is the case, I have several points.
if that is the case, I have several points.
- Mass is a celebration of the Eucharist and a worship of Christ. It is not completely necessary to understand it in order to recieve the spiritual benefits. (that is what I believe, although of course it is a very good thing to understand it because it aids in worship)
- If one desires to understand it (which is, of course, recommended) then they can use a missal, which has all the masses of the year in it with Latin on one side and an English (or whatever language they prefer to speak) translation on the other.
- One can also learn Latin is they prefer to understand it outright, but like I said, most use a missal
- The sermon, and anything else that varies (not specific to that Sunday’s mass), is performed in whatever language would be best understand i.e. usually not Latin
- Latin was the language that all mass was said in until the Vatican II counsel in the 20th century
- Latin masses are still said today for those who prefer traditional Catholicism.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Latin on the Rise in the UK
Although the Mass or even religion is not mentioned here, I was thinking wouldn’t it be ironic if liturgies in the U.K. (both Anglican and Catholic) end up with more Latin than those in the U.S.
Although the Mass or even religion is not mentioned here, I was thinking wouldn’t it be ironic if liturgies in the U.K. (both Anglican and Catholic) end up with more Latin than those in the U.S.
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
God became One of us to speak directly to us and we keep pushing Him away.
As I mentioned before and what one may hear when the Mass is in the vernacular, “Lord, have Mercy on us ALL”.
Sometimes, I wonder if anyone else has ever heard this at Mass and I also wonder if others even wants this to be.
So many are calling for Justice, or at least what they think of as Justice, but how many are pleading for “Mercy on us ALL”?
A few simple understandable words can say much more than all of the pretty sounds.
As Jesus said on the cross, “IT IS FINISHED” which translates as PAID IN FULL, I thank You from ALL of us.
As I mentioned before and what one may hear when the Mass is in the vernacular, “Lord, have Mercy on us ALL”.
Sometimes, I wonder if anyone else has ever heard this at Mass and I also wonder if others even wants this to be.
So many are calling for Justice, or at least what they think of as Justice, but how many are pleading for “Mercy on us ALL”?
A few simple understandable words can say much more than all of the pretty sounds.
As Jesus said on the cross, “IT IS FINISHED” which translates as PAID IN FULL, I thank You from ALL of us.
G
GangGreen
Guest
I like to think of my own journey with the EF.
The first couple of times I went to the EF, I really had no idea to expect. I actually ended up going to a Low Mass. No music and the priest didn’t wear a microphone. The Church I was in has high ceilings and all of that and the priest wasn’t speaking particularly loud (he’s loud when he does Missa Canata) so I had NO idea what was going on. The only thing I understood what was going on was the consecration. Which, at the end of the day is the most important part of the Mass anyway.
Yet, being at that Mass, there was just something about it that I liked that I couldn’t quite grasp. So it made me want to keep going back whenever I could and also learn more about it and the prayers. I went toa Missa Cantata and it really made me fall in love with it. I still wasn’t too crazy about the Low Mass, though. However, at that point I started to learn more of the prayers and understand what all of the different parts of it meant and how it all comes together. Now I adore the Low Mass as well.
What I’m trying to get at, is that yes, understanding the language is sometimes a barrier to entry. However, it’s the desire of the person to be taught and to learn about the Mass that makes it come alive no matter what language it’s in. In fact I’d say that I probably only know the words to about 25% (or less) of the Low Mass by heart. However, I have the translations and even if I’m not reading the book, I know what’s going on and I know the sanctity of what’s going on. These are important. To see the Mass and feel the presence of the Lord especially in the most Holy Sacrament. Words don’t do these things justice.
The first couple of times I went to the EF, I really had no idea to expect. I actually ended up going to a Low Mass. No music and the priest didn’t wear a microphone. The Church I was in has high ceilings and all of that and the priest wasn’t speaking particularly loud (he’s loud when he does Missa Canata) so I had NO idea what was going on. The only thing I understood what was going on was the consecration. Which, at the end of the day is the most important part of the Mass anyway.
Yet, being at that Mass, there was just something about it that I liked that I couldn’t quite grasp. So it made me want to keep going back whenever I could and also learn more about it and the prayers. I went toa Missa Cantata and it really made me fall in love with it. I still wasn’t too crazy about the Low Mass, though. However, at that point I started to learn more of the prayers and understand what all of the different parts of it meant and how it all comes together. Now I adore the Low Mass as well.
What I’m trying to get at, is that yes, understanding the language is sometimes a barrier to entry. However, it’s the desire of the person to be taught and to learn about the Mass that makes it come alive no matter what language it’s in. In fact I’d say that I probably only know the words to about 25% (or less) of the Low Mass by heart. However, I have the translations and even if I’m not reading the book, I know what’s going on and I know the sanctity of what’s going on. These are important. To see the Mass and feel the presence of the Lord especially in the most Holy Sacrament. Words don’t do these things justice.
S
souldiver
Guest
Some old relatives of mine said that the Mass and sermon are in Latin but when explaining the sermon, the priest uses vernacular. Nice to know that the teachings of Jesus reaches Catholics in other venues but it’s not clear to me. Is it only on Sunday school? Or ordinary schools? How about people who don’t go to school? How will they learn?
P
paperwight66
Guest
Could you clarify your question? Where do schools come into it?
S
souldiver
Guest
As venue for Catholics to teach Christ’s teachings. It remember that’s one poster said.
P
PurgerOfHeresy
Guest
To be more precise it was the Second Vatican Council that changed the main language of the Mass from latin to secular language, however, in a Pius V mass (also known as Tridentine Mass), it doesn’t affect your understanding, because (at least the parish which I attend to) have the translation on the left side of the paper, and usually the sermons are given in the secular language.
And no, the problem as I see it, isn’t having latin, but the lack of it, nowadays it’s getting harder to see parishes offer tridentine mass, when every city and town should have at least once a week.
And no, the problem as I see it, isn’t having latin, but the lack of it, nowadays it’s getting harder to see parishes offer tridentine mass, when every city and town should have at least once a week.
- Status