Latin Mass?

[JKirkLVNV]

Medicine and science has been very good about not throwing out their Latin.

My husband is a pharmacist for the state of California. Dosages for medications are still given to pharmacist in Latin. I wonder if California is ever going to do away with Latin in their practice of medicine. How about getting Latin out of our Law and Courts. I don’t think so. There is very practical reasons to have a universally understood language that doesn’t change with the times.

But all of those Latin phrases have to be translated to be of any use. So even if something appears in Latin, it’s translated into the vernacular. Even if it’s done quickly and solely in the brain of the reader, it’s translated.

And no one has suggested that Latin is not important to the Church.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Why should your average Roman Catholic read this book, if they will most likely never see it in their parish in their lifetime. Still the majority of Roman Catholic priests , bishops, cardinals, etc… refuse to incorperate the TLM in their parish.

This is regarding the book “The Holy Mass” by Dom Prosper Gueranger. It’s only a small book and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the Tridentine Mass. It is available from Baronius Press.

Now to answer your question:

The average Catholic, especially young Catholics like myself have had no experience of the Tridentine Mass. They have only heard negative things about this Mass from the clergy, media, and some laity.

Catholics should read this small book in order to educate themselves. Anyone interested in the Tridentine Mass should read this. It is a classic and is fully in line with Catholic teaching; it’s author was a liturgical expert in years gone by.

You say that people should not read this book because they will never see a Tridentine Mass. This is precisely why they should read it. They will never request and fight for something that they have no understanding of! If more people become aware of the beauties of the Tridentine Mass, more people will want it. The Tridentine Mass will never grow in popularity if the majority of Catholics know nothing about it.

IF YOU LEARN ABOUT THE TRIDENTINE MASS, THEN I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT YOU WILL COME TO LOVE AND SUPPORT IT.

Open your mind and approach the Tridentine Mass with no preconceived notions. Do not worry about the language. Simply sit and take it all in. Meditate on the passion of Christ and focus on the sacrifice taking place at the altar. Use the quiet moments to pray and unite your suffering to the Lord’s. Eventually, you will come to understand all that is being said.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I hope this doesn’t sound quarrelsome or rude (mea culpa) but:

Just because words may be spoken (or read) in a language which somebody speaks or reads as their ‘native’ tongue. . .does not mean that the words will be correctly understood. We have all had many examples of this:

Words which have different ‘meanings’ to different people (prayer, for example).
Words which are ‘commonly’ understood in one way in ‘secular’ speech and differently in ‘religious’ speech.
Words which have had their meanings CHANGED (gay old time).

And then, HOW the word is spoken. Remember how Mark Antony, in his speech after Caesar’s death, said NOTHING that the conspirators could find fault with, but it was the WAY he said it “For Brutus is an HONORABLE man”. . .the emphasis was so blatantly meant to underscore that Antony thought Brutus totally the OPPOSITE and he managed to convey that to the people. A priest (or anybody else) can ‘read’ the words and convey through tone, body language, etc. his or her total condemnation, disapproval, mockery etc. of those words but ‘innocently’ claim, “I said EXACTLY what I was supposed to.”

So there are, were, and have been thousands of people who have gone to Mass (and otherwise) and listened to Mass and homilies and other Catholic teaching “IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE” and --guess what? Many, many, many of them claim that “the Church says X” (and the Church doesn’t). That we can ‘believe X’ (and we can’t.) Worse yet, they use language to convey half-truths or to misdirect people. That the Mass is PRIMARILY, a meal, that Christ is 'symbolic in the Eucharist, that ‘we are Church’, that community is more important that ‘blind legalism’, that ‘our conscience is our guide’, that it matters more that we ‘show up’ than how we look or speak or act. . .

The Mass is not ‘just’ a meal, but, oh, we used “primarily” so you can’t argue about OUR INTERPRETATION, you know. We never talk about anything OTHER than the meal part, but hey, it IS (partly) a meal so la-la-la-la. . .
The Eucharist is not JUST a symbol, but you don’t want kids thinking they’re eating FLESH, you know. You have to teach them GRADUALLY. Well, 40 years on, you STILL HAVEN’T TAUGHT THEM, IT SEEMS!
We are Church. Yes, we are, but the Church is MORE, much more, than just ‘we’, and to leave out the ‘rest of the story’ leads us to believe that as ‘Church’ WE are the primary authority.
Community is more important than blind legalism. Nobody argues with that. . .EXCEPT that what they call ‘blind legalism’ others call simple adherence to rules, and what they call ‘community’ is an attempt to get AROUND the rules by claiming that ‘legalism’ is infringing ON the community (whatever ‘community’ is to them). How ‘dare’ we to judge what ‘community’ A should be doing at Mass? Isn’t that up to the COMMUNITY???
“Our conscience is our guide.” Yes. . .but ONLY if it’s well informed. How often they leave that other part completely out. . .
“*It matters more that we show up etc.” *Certainly it is important to ‘be there’. . .but as we are reminded in the story of the man who came to the banquet ‘without a wedding garment’, just bringing in bodies, bodies who think that just showing up (when they feel like it, however they ‘choose’ to come) is ‘being church’ is ridiculous. How many decent universities would permit students to graduate who showed up for class (if at all) half dressed, were totally unprepared for class, never did any work in or outside class, argued with the professor over the subject and refused to ‘take his word’ for anything, and who then DEMANDED to ‘graduate’ summa cum laude? Yet that is what it appears many people want to do when it comes to church attendance and practice.

 

[Cathryn]

But all of those Latin phrases have to be translated to be of any use. So even if something appears in Latin, it’s translated into the vernacular. Even if it’s done quickly and solely in the brain of the reader, it’s translated.

.

People are capable of learning some Latin, especially when the english is able to be read side by side as it was in the missals before Vatican II.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

IF YOU LEARN ABOUT THE TRIDENTINE MASS, THEN I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT YOU WILL COME TO LOVE AND SUPPORT IT.

Let me ask you something. I’m an orthodox Catholic. There isn’t a teaching of the Church in which I do not believe. I converted as an adult, so I made a choice, ie, this isn’t simply the religion of my people in which I remain out of laziness, etc. I’ve learned about the Tridentine Mass and I’ve attended the Tridentine Mass. It leaves me cold. I don’t care to attend it, though I’m happy that others have the freedom to do so. What if, having learned about the Tridentine Mass, I and others don’t particularly love it? Keep in mind that we don’t hate it. We simply prefer the Mass in our own langauge. So is there something wrong with me (and the many others who feel the same way)? Are we bad Catholics, heretics, schismatics, etc?

 

[Dempsey1919]

So is there something wrong with me (and the many others who feel the same way)? Are we bad Catholics, heretics, schismatics, etc?

I have never ever said that those who don’t like the Tridentine Mass are bad Catholics, heretics etc. Never. And I never will.

The Ordinary form of the Mass is just as valid and there is certainly nothing wrong with anyone who prefers it. I do not advocate the removal of this Mass. If people attend this Mass and leave feeling spiritually enriched - then that’s great.

However, I will do all I can to promote the Tridentine Mass. I love this form of the Mass and I want to introduce as many people to it as I can. If they like it then great, if they don’t then that’s okay too. I just want them to know that they have the option.

People are quick to stigmatise the Tridentine Mass. Many people are against its use. I love it and I want it to stay. I will do all that I can to preserve it for the future. If the Novus Ordo was under attack by a lot of people, I’m sure that you would try to convince people of it’s good qualities.

Your post is exactly why I want to promote the Tridentine Mass. So many people believe that traditional Catholics think they’re better than everyone else. This is not the case. We just prefer the Tridentine Mass and now have the right to celebrate it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

People are capable of learning some Latin, especially when the english is able to be read side by side as it was in the missals before Vatican II.

That simply goes to what I said: for it to be intelligible, it had to be translated. No matter how often I hear “consubstantial” (and that an English derivation from Latin, not pure Latin itself), I’m going to think (ie. translate it so it has meaning) “one in being with.” It’s always going to be translated. So who is the Latin for?

 

[mercygate]

Hi all! I’m a new Catholic, so I forgive me if I misunderstand this.

I keep hearing all these things about having the Mass in the traditional Latin. Why is this? I know it used to be that way and was changed, but why should we change it back now?

(I’m honestly not sure I’d have come back to the Church if it had been said in Latin. It would have really discouraged me.)

Why do so many want it all back in Latin now? I don’t see anything wrong with that at all, but I fail to see what’s wrong with having Mass in any other language.
Can anyone enlighten me on this issue?
Latin WAS the “English” of its day. There is nothing wrong with vernacular for the Mass. But the TLM is the form that was in place basically from the 800s until the 1960s. Those of us who see the good of both the Novus Ordo and the TLM are eager to see the beauty of each form made available to a wider spectrum of the faithful.

You would not be required to attend the TLM and it will not replace the NO.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I hope this doesn’t sound quarrelsome or rude (mea culpa) but:

Just because words may be spoken (or read) in a language which somebody speaks or reads as their ‘native’ tongue. . .does not mean that the words will be correctly understood. We have all had many examples of this:

Words which have different ‘meanings’ to different people (prayer, for example).
Words which are ‘commonly’ understood in one way in ‘secular’ speech and differently in ‘religious’ speech.
Words which have had their meanings CHANGED (gay old time).

And then, HOW the word is spoken. Remember how Mark Antony, in his speech after Caesar’s death, said NOTHING that the conspirators could find fault with, but it was the WAY he said it “For Brutus is an HONORABLE man”. . .the emphasis was so blatantly meant to underscore that Antony thought Brutus totally the OPPOSITE and he managed to convey that to the people. A priest (or anybody else) can ‘read’ the words and convey through tone, body language, etc. his or her total condemnation, disapproval, mockery etc. of those words but ‘innocently’ claim, “I said EXACTLY what I was supposed to.”

So there are, were, and have been thousands of people who have gone to Mass (and otherwise) and listened to Mass and homilies and other Catholic teaching “IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE” and --guess what? Many, many, many of them claim that “the Church says X” (and the Church doesn’t). That we can ‘believe X’ (and we can’t.) Worse yet, they use language to convey half-truths or to misdirect people. That the Mass is PRIMARILY, a meal, that Christ is 'symbolic in the Eucharist, that ‘we are Church’, that community is more important that ‘blind legalism’, that ‘our conscience is our guide’, that it matters more that we ‘show up’ than how we look or speak or act. . .

The Mass is not ‘just’ a meal, but, oh, we used “primarily” so you can’t argue about OUR INTERPRETATION, you know. We never talk about anything OTHER than the meal part, but hey, it IS (partly) a meal so la-la-la-la. . .
The Eucharist is not JUST a symbol, but you don’t want kids thinking they’re eating FLESH, you know. You have to teach them GRADUALLY. Well, 40 years on, you STILL HAVEN’T TAUGHT THEM, IT SEEMS!
We are Church. Yes, we are, but the Church is MORE, much more, than just ‘we’, and to leave out the ‘rest of the story’ leads us to believe that as ‘Church’ WE are the primary authority.
Community is more important than blind legalism. Nobody argues with that. . .EXCEPT that what they call ‘blind legalism’ others call simple adherence to rules, and what they call ‘community’ is an attempt to get AROUND the rules by claiming that ‘legalism’ is infringing ON the community (whatever ‘community’ is to them). How ‘dare’ we to judge what ‘community’ A should be doing at Mass? Isn’t that up to the COMMUNITY???
“Our conscience is our guide.” Yes. . .but ONLY if it’s well informed. How often they leave that other part completely out. . .
“*It matters more that we show up etc.” *Certainly it is important to ‘be there’. . .but as we are reminded in the story of the man who came to the banquet ‘without a wedding garment’, just bringing in bodies, bodies who think that just showing up (when they feel like it, however they ‘choose’ to come) is ‘being church’ is ridiculous. How many decent universities would permit students to graduate who showed up for class (if at all) half dressed, were totally unprepared for class, never did any work in or outside class, argued with the professor over the subject and refused to ‘take his word’ for anything, and who then DEMANDED to ‘graduate’ summa cum laude? Yet that is what it appears many people want to do when it comes to church attendance and practice.

With respect, Tantum Ergo, the above is true, but NONE of that can be laid at the door of the vernacular Mass. All of the above was done in the presence OF the vernacular Mass, certainly, but this is bad teaching, false catechesis, etc. There is nothing in the vernacular Mass that denies ANY teaching of the Church nor does any of this argue against the vernacular. The Faith itself is hard, but learning ABOUT the faith should not be. Otherwise, it would be intelligence that got you into the Kingdom of Heaven, not God’s grace or Charity. Certainly, to be a good Christian, you have to learn to speak another “language,” but only metaphorically speaking, not literally.

 

[Silver_Thread]

I’m 65 yrs old. When I was young we were too poor to afford Missal even if one was available. So we said our own prayers during mass. Many said the rosary. During High Mass we gave the Latin Responses, though many did not know what they were saying. Three years ago I returned to the Latin Mass. I bought a Missal. WOW!! I can’t believe what I missed. What beautiful words to meditate upon. The varied readings and how they help complete the liturgy for each special day is beauty that only the heart can see. The priest can continue in Latin so the form remains pure but I can pray and read right along with him or as I sometimes do …get lost in meditating on a particular passage. Talk about “actual participation”! As VII called for! Not active! For those attached to the Novus Ordo, I would suggest reading all the prayers for a particular Latin High Mass from the Asperges Mae to the end. Then ask how close is the NO liturgy to what was celebrated for 1500 yrs. I’m home now. Sorry I left.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m 65 yrs old. When I was young we were too poor to afford Missal even if one was available. So we said our own prayers during mass. Many said the rosary. During High Mass we gave the Latin Responses, though many did not know what they were saying. Three years ago I returned to the Latin Mass. I bought a Missal. WOW!! I can’t believe what I missed. What beautiful words to meditate upon. The varied readings and how they help complete the liturgy for each special day is beauty that only the heart can see. The priest can continue in Latin so the form remains pure but I can pray and read right along with him or as I sometimes do …get lost in meditating on a particular passage. Talk about “actual participation”! As VII called for! Not active! For those attached to the Novus Ordo, I would suggest reading all the prayers for a particular Latin High Mass from the Asperges Mae to the end. Then ask how close is the NO liturgy to what was celebrated for 1500 yrs. I’m home now. Sorry I left.

No one is denying that the prose is far more beautiful. It’s also more beautiful in the vernacular. Given the choice between worshipping in a beautiful ritual whose language I don’t understand and worshipping in a less beautiful, but equally orthodox ritual in which I understand the language, I’m going to choose the latter over the former. I’m willing to bet that most people feel that way.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I’m 65 yrs old. When I was young we were too poor to afford Missal even if one was available. So we said our own prayers during mass. Many said the rosary. During High Mass we gave the Latin Responses, though many did not know what they were saying. Three years ago I returned to the Latin Mass. I bought a Missal. WOW!! I can’t believe what I missed. What beautiful words to meditate upon. The varied readings and how they help complete the liturgy for each special day is beauty that only the heart can see. The priest can continue in Latin so the form remains pure but I can pray and read right along with him or as I sometimes do …get lost in meditating on a particular passage. Talk about “actual participation”! As VII called for! Not active! For those attached to the Novus Ordo, I would suggest reading all the prayers for a particular Latin High Mass from the Asperges Mae to the end. Then ask how close is the NO liturgy to what was celebrated for 1500 yrs. I’m home now. Sorry I left.

It’s amazing isn’t it. The prayers are beautiful and very deep. I’m glad you returned and I hope that your testimony encourages people to learn more about it, and maybe attend themselves.

 

[Cathryn]

That simply goes to what I said: for it to be intelligible, it had to be translated. No matter how often I hear “consubstantial” (and that an English derivation from Latin, not pure Latin itself), I’m going to think (ie. translate it so it has meaning) “one in being with.” It’s always going to be translated. So who is the Latin for?

The Latin is for the Church, us. The vernacular is for the Church, us, also. One Mass is never better than another. There is always something to learn about the Mass. Do I translate the Kyrie and the Agnus Dei and more into english in my head, yes. The person next to me can tranlate it into Vietnamese, and the person across the isle can translate it in Spanish.
The Church is bending over backwards to give us what we need.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I have never ever said that those who don’t like the Tridentine Mass are bad Catholics, heretics etc. Never. And I never will.

The Ordinary form of the Mass is just as valid and there is certainly nothing wrong with anyone who prefers it. I do not advocate the removal of this Mass. If people attend this Mass and leave feeling spiritually enriched - then that’s great.

However, I will do all I can to promote the Tridentine Mass. I love this form of the Mass and I want to introduce as many people to it as I can. If they like it then great, if they don’t then that’s okay too. I just want them to know that they have the option.

People are quick to stigmatise the Tridentine Mass. Many people are against its use. I love it and I want it to stay. I will do all that I can to preserve it for the future. If the Novus Ordo was under attack by a lot of people, I’m sure that you would try to convince people of it’s good qualities.

Your post is exactly why I want to promote the Tridentine Mass. So many people believe that traditional Catholics think they’re better than everyone else. This is not the case. We just prefer the Tridentine Mass and now have the right to celebrate it.

You’ll have to convince SOME of your fellow traditionalists of the last paragraph! I already knew they weren’t better than everyone else (inasmuch as we have all fallen short of the Glory).

And I applaud your desire to promote the Tridentine Mass. Here’s the rub: if you really want it to succeed, to be embraced again, consider the possibility of the Tridentine in the vernacular someday. We’d have one single form in one single rite. That’s the only answer that I can see to the problem. If the Tridentine were offered in the vernacular, the Pauline Rite would gradually fade away. As it stands, I don’t think the Tridentine will ever win over people who simply like the Mass in their own tongue.

And, of course, you’re right, if you don’t want your message muddled, you’ll need to distance myself from some of those who also call themselves “traditionalists.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Latin is for the Church, us. The vernacular is for the Church, us, also. One Mass is never better than another. There is always something to learn about the Mass. Do I translate the Kyrie and the Agnus Dei and more into english in my head, yes. The person next to me can tranlate it into Vietnamese, and the person across the isle can translate it in Spanish.
The Church is bending over backwards to give us what we need.

And if we could be satisfied with that, that would be ideal. But that won’t satisfy some people, they won’t be happy until there are no vernacular masses. That’s the reason some people are leery of the Tridentine: those who advocate for it won’t rest until it’s all their way. But your post heartens me. Thank you.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Certainly, people could understand it well enough to follow along if they take a bit of time to understand it. It would take quite a bit more study (more like a major) to understand Latin the way in which we understand, comprehend, and reason in our own native tongues. Thus, you have to have an entire course of study to comprehend the vehicle in which your faith and worship is conveyed. This seems pointless when it already exists in another vehicle (all of it now exists in the vernacular and is readily accessible) and I really have trouble believing that the use of Latin in the liturgy is expressive of the will of God for our worship. I certainly think it lies within His permissive will, but it isn’t a part of the Deposit of Faith that our liturgy must be in Latin nor that we must believe that it must be nor that we cannot prefer it in the vernacular.

And I wasn’t referencing Blessed John XXIII, I was referencing Pope John VIII (the 8th). So it was a mistype. My apologies.

It would take more study to understand it without translating it in one’s head. However, well worth the effort since it is the language of the Church. And certainly seminarians could do it and Religious, plus almost anyone who sets aside some time and keeps at it.

I am reminded of something C.S. Lewis wrote in Surprised by Joy. He had been learning Ancient Greek under a tutor. Lewis would translate a passage, and as he kept at it he could translate more and more (he was probably about 14). Then he reached the point where he read the Greek word “naus” and instead of translating it into “ship” he said he saw a sleek black hulled ship cutting through the water with no English word intervening whatsoever. I think that is possible for nearly anyone studying Latin.

Further, as far as understanding the liturgy, what kind of real understanding are people receiving when quite often the liturgy has been translated inaccurately? The Wanderer runs columns showing how the Latin has been translated inaccurately. And this is often done purposely because certain liturgists believe that not only should the liturgy be in the vernacular but it should be in simple street language. Or their “dynamic translation” can often reflect their own biases in the translation. And since Latin has been jettisoned from the seminaries and the liturgy for the most part they can get away with it. It is real issues like these which lead to the impoverishment of the liturgy (and hence a robbing of the people of their heritage) which belie any supposed benefits of the vernacular.

Thus when the liturgy is in the vernacular the real meaning may not be readily accessible. And hence learning the Latin is far from pointless. Further, anyone who wishes to really understand something will of course wish to go directly to the original language rather than a translation. For instance, it is far better to be able to read a book in the original language rather than a translation since any translation cannot necessarily fully convey the meaning and intent of the original. We have all heard of someone saying “Well, it is really hard to convey that sense in English, there’s really no word for it.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It would take more study to understand it without translating it in one’s head. However, well worth the effort since it is the language of the Church. And certainly seminarians could do it and Religious, plus almost anyone who sets aside some time and keeps at it.

I am reminded of something C.S. Lewis wrote in Surprised by Joy. He had been learning Ancient Greek under a tutor. Lewis would translate a passage, and as he kept at it he could translate more and more (he was probably about 14). Then he reached the point where he read the Greek word “naus” and instead of translating it into “ship” he said he saw a sleek black hulled ship cutting through the water with no English word intervening whatsoever. I think that is possible for nearly anyone studying Latin.

Further, as far as understanding the liturgy, what kind of real understanding are people receiving when quite often the liturgy has been translated inaccurately? The Wanderer runs columns showing how the Latin has been translated inaccurately. And this is often done purposely because certain liturgists believe that not only should the liturgy be in the vernacular but it should be in simple street language. Or their “dynamic translation” can often reflect their own biases in the translation. And since Latin has been jettisoned from the seminaries and the liturgy for the most part they can get away with it. It is real issues like these which lead to the impoverishment of the liturgy (and hence a robbing of the people of their heritage) which belie any supposed benefits of the vernacular.

And I work with second-language learners and their parents, not Oxford dons (I have nothing, but reverence and respect for C.S. Lewis). Most of them will continue to mentally translate what is said to them into their native tongue. mentally construct a response, translate it into their non-native tongue, then say it or attempt to say it. That’s a lot of steps to simply communicate. Why should this be the case for their religion, supposedly their refuge and their strength? Forgive me, what comes to MY mind when I hear this constant insistence on Latin to the exclusion of any other possibility is the heresy of gnosticism, wherein the initiates have to have some secret (or merely special) knowledge in order to commune with the Divine. Now, obviously, the Church isn’t guilty of gnosticism (it can’t be) and neither are you (I said it merely comes to my mind), but I think it goes back to what’s more important, learning about your faith or learning the ins and outs of a new language in order to learn about or worship IN your faith? It’s hard enough for the people that I work with to put bread on the table for their children and keep a roof over their heads AND tend to their faith and the religious training of their children. Why go to that model when it’s all perfectly accessible and understandable to them now (as accessible and understandable as the Mystery can be)?

No one is arguing that our priests should not be familiar with Latin, they patently should be, as it has been and continues to be an important part of the history and life of our faith. But I think it’s a bit of an overkill to insist that everyone learn Latin in order to worship God, just as I think it would be a bit of an overkill to insist that they learn Greek or Hebrew in order to read the Bible.

We can have good translations. Aren’t the one’s on the opposite side of the page of the Latin Tridentine perfectly good translations? Are translations inherently corruptions? Then why should we stick with corrupt Latin translations? If absolute purity is our goal, then should we not revert back to the Greek of the first 300 years of the Church’s life?

 

[Cathryn]

And if we could be satisfied with that, that would be ideal. But that won’t satisfy some people, they won’t be happy until there are no vernacular masses. That’s the reason some people are leery of the Tridentine: those who advocate for it won’t rest until it’s all their way. But your post heartens me. Thank you.

Most of the people I know who are excited about having the Latin Mass available soon, also love the NO, and would go to either. I know what you are talking about however. If one believes the Mass is a valid Mass how can any Catholic have contempt for the form of it. There is one man in my parish that would give his front teeth to have the NO permanently eliminated. He is just banging his head against the wall, however. It won’t happen. The NO is sacred today, and will be sacred tomorrow. I can understand when somone loves the Mass just as it is, and suddenly is told by many that there is another Mass that is better, and lists the reasons why. The Vatican however made it pretty clear that the Latin Mass can not be better than the vernacular Mass. There’s only one Mass. Jesus Christ is the Sacrifice and the High Priest in both forms Latin and vernacular. The Mass is Perfect because of Him. Please put up with a little enthusiasm on the part of those who love the Latin Mass, it was pulled out from under many of us. We may even try to get others to love it too. I think Catholics need to be aware of the problem of division in this regard and be sensitive to demeaning a fellow Catholics love for the Mass in another form.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

And I work with second-language learners and their parents, not Oxford dons (I have nothing, but reverence and respect for C.S. Lewis). Most of them will continue to mentally translate what is said to them into their native tongue. mentally construct a response, translate it into their non-native tongue, then say it or attempt to say it. That’s a lot of steps to simply communicate. Why should this be the case for their religion, supposedly their refuge and their strength? Forgive me, what comes to MY mind when I hear this constant insistence on Latin to the exclusion of any other possibility is the heresy of gnosticism, wherein the initiates have to have some secret (or merely special) knowledge in order to commune with the Divine. Now, obviously, the Church isn’t guilty of gnosticism (it can’t be) and neither are you (I said it merely comes to my mind), but I think it goes back to what’s more important, learning about your faith or learning the ins and outs of a new language in order to learn about or worship IN your faith? It’s hard enough for the people that I work with to put bread on the table for their children and keep a roof over their heads AND tend to their faith and the religious training of their children. Why go to that model when it’s all perfectly accessible and understandable to them now (as accessible and understandable as the Mystery can be)?

No one is arguing that our priests should not be familiar with Latin, they patently should be, as it has been and continues to be an important part of the history and life of our faith. But I think it’s a bit of an overkill to insist that everyone learn Latin in order to worship God, just as I think it would be a bit of an overkill to insist that they learn Greek or Hebrew in order to read the Bible.

We can have good translations. Aren’t the one’s on the opposite side of the page of the Latin Tridentine perfectly good translations? Are translations inherently corruptions? Then why should we stick with corrupt Latin translations? If absolute purity is our goal, then should we not revert back to the Greek of the first 300 years of the Church’s life?

I agree that it would be the few rather than the many who would learn Latin well enough to understand it without translating it to English. And we both agree (and recent Popes concur) that seminarians and Priests should learn Latin. Nevertheless, part of the reason seminarians have not been is that their instructors know they probably will never have to use it since it (for the most part) has been dropped from the liturgy.

And yes, I do think the English translations of the TLM are good. In fact, due to the changes in the liturgy, I would take a TLM in the vernacular over the NO in Latin any day. However, part of the reason I think the TLM translations are good is that they are translations of a liturgy that will be celebrated in Latin and thus have the Latin texts right across from them. I think it is much more difficult to mistranslate or give an impoverished translation when practically speaking many people will be able to do a side by side comparison and one doesn’t necessarily have to be an expert in Latin to discover a poor or inaccurate translation.

And I would say it is due to the unchangeable nature of a “dead” or sacred language (whether it be Latin or ancient Greek or old Russian) which helps provide a refuge and a strength for people. It does not help people’s sense of trust when there are wars over differing views of how the Latin should be translated and one can’t necessarily trust that the translation they are reading is as accurate as it can be.

I am glad we have the Bible in the vernacular, but again, most of the Mass is unchanging (and not as long) so it’s not like one would have to learn nearly as much Latin as one would have to learn Hebrew or Greek to read the Bible in the original languages.

Since Latin became the language of the Church I do have a trust that whatever was originally in the Greek has been fairly accurately conveyed to the Latin and of course I’m sure parts of the liturgy were originally done in the Latin itself. All part of organic devlopment.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Most of the people I know who are excited about having the Latin Mass available soon, also love the NO, and would go to either. I know what you are talking about however. If one believes the Mass is a valid Mass how can any Catholic have contempt for the form of it. There is one man in my parish that would give his front teeth to have the NO permanently eliminated. He is just banging his head against the wall, however. It won’t happen. The NO is sacred today, and will be sacred tomorrow. I can understand when somone loves the Mass just as it is, and suddenly is told by many that there is another Mass that is better, and lists the reasons why. The Vatican however made it pretty clear that the Latin Mass can not be better than the vernacular Mass. There’s only one Mass. Jesus Christ is the Sacrifice and the High Priest in both forms Latin and vernacular. The Mass is Perfect because of Him. Please put up with a little enthusiasm on the part of those who love the Latin Mass, it was pulled out from under many of us. We may even try to get others to love it too. I think Catholics need to be aware of the problem of division in this regard and be sensitive to demeaning a fellow Catholics love for the Mass in another form.

I hope your attitude is as contagious as chickenpox in a kindergarten!