Perhaps you have not read Sacrosanctum Concilium:
Thus, the Council itself stated that Latin should be retained, used. It wasn’t necessarily envisioning that the entire Mass was to be celebrated in the vernacular.
this is from your post. and this is what i have been saying. they can use the vernacular, and it even has the approval of the Apostolic See. so yes, they have every right and everything they do has approval. so i don’t know what you are protesting about. the language used is simple enought to understand that Latin is not mandatory.
- These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
Again, with all due respect, you are not getting the point. The Mass is not some hodge-podge multicultural experience. Sacramentum Caritatis already gave some solid guidelines that indicate how these multi-lingual liturgies should take place.no, you accuse people, namely bishops, that they ignore it where in fact they understand it fully and better than you and i. they have every right to use Latin or the vernacular for Liturgy in their archdiocese. never has any of these documents made Latin mandatory. yes its important, yes it is the mother tongue of our particular Church, but no it is NOT mandatory. therefore Bishops can use the local language if they please and this is not against any Church teaching
But, choy, the key phrase here is:this is from your post. and this is what i have been saying. they can use the vernacular, and it even has the approval of the Apostolic See. so yes, they have every right and everything they do has approval. so i don’t know what you are protesting about. the language used is simple enought to understand that Latin is not mandatory.
The idea of translating the entire liturgy does not come up here.to what extent
a Mass in the vernacular is not solely dependent on the official language of the area, but the language that is spoken by most of the parishonersAgain, with all due respect, you are not getting the point. The Mass is not some hodge-podge multicultural experience. Sacramentum Caritatis already gave some solid guidelines that indicate how these multi-lingual liturgies should take place.
If you want to make the argument about the local language for the particular Mass the OP was referencing, then, perhaps the whole liturgy should have been celebrated in English, since that is the local language of the archdiocese where the Sacrifice took place.
as i’ve said in the past, i was, is, never will be against Latin, especially in the Liturgy. what i am against is people who make Latin into something that its not, just because its their personal preference. forcing a personal choice on other people when the Authorities of the Church doesn’t have the same exact viewpoint is not a good thing. its deceiving other people and it gives a lot of other people a negative image of their own faith, when in fact what they have been doing is perfectly fine.But, choy, the key phrase here is:
The idea of translating the entire liturgy does not come up here.
With all due respect, just what do you have against using Latin, especially if the Council and the Popes after the Council consistently advocated, supported and encouraged its use? Pope Benedict XVI, for one, specifically stated its usage in Sacramentum Caritatis. You have yet to argue against that one. Your only comments seem to restrict the usage of Latin only to the Vatican when clearly, that is not what Pope Benedict wrote.
Thank you Father!Wow. This thread is really sad. Apparently people from different cultures combined to have a Mass in which the way each of their cultures has Mass is put together and the thread devolves into a thread about why Latin would be better. Of course, there’s the usual demeaning of the way people worship God throughout different cultures. I have news for all of you, that’s how Mass is said in MANY parts of the world. Other cultures do not always view “solemn” in the same way that Western European cultures do.
There’s a million theads in which people can argue why Latin is the greatest language ever created, why hijack a thread about a simple celebration of the Church’s universality?
BenedictGal, make sure you don’t overstate your case, which I regret to say you often do, especially considering as we probably 95% agree about the liturgy. The Holy Father did not say that Latin “is to be used,” he said he endorsed a proposal stating that it’s fitting that Latin be used. One would be a command; the other is a recommendation and exhortation. When the Holy Father decides that Latin is to be used, he will say, “Latin must be used.” Please don’t pretend that that’s what he did to support your preference (and mine BTW) that Latin should be used. You can support Latin in the liturgy, as I do, without bluffing your way into a claim that the Holy See has commanded Latin for any particular liturgy, which it has not.The Holy Father has already written in an official document that Latin is to be used in multi-lingual liturgies, again, something that you choose to ignore.
The parishioners don’t decide what will be approved and authenticized by the Vatican. The Vatican gives you the specific text to use, including proper punctuation and capitilization of the words. Since the vernacular is an indult, the bishop ultimately decides which ones are allowed in his diocese and parishes.a Mass in the vernacular is not solely dependent on the official language of the area, but the language that is spoken by most of the parishoners
no, the local Bishop does this and then submits it to the Vatican for approvalThe parishioners don’t decide what will be approved and authenticized by the Vatican. The Vatican gives you the specific text to use, including proper punctuation.and capitilization of the words.
Perhaps you have not read Sacrosanctum Concilium:
Quote:
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites., and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
- But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the Liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives
- These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
- Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the Liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
Mark, you make a valid point, but let’s be realistic. The Pope (or even Cardinal Arinze) will not say it must be in Latin as, for one thing, there may not be enough local knowledge of Latin to make it feasible. Second of all, he knows he will be met with hostile opposition if he issues a “must” of any kind. Pope John XXIII has stated about the strongest statement of Latin already in his Veterum Sapientia, including “must be taught” in seminaries, reinforced by current canon law (#249), and where did that get us? I would say at this point, if the Pope prefers it or that he recommends that we do it, let’s do it that way and let the chips fall where they may.BenedictGal, make sure you don’t overstate your case, which I regret to say you often do, especially considering as we probably 95% agree about the liturgy. The Holy Father did not say that Latin “is to be used,” he said he endorsed a proposal stating that it’s fitting that Latin be used. One would be a command; the other is a recommendation and exhortation. When the Holy Father decides that Latin is to be used, he will say, “Latin must be used.” Please don’t pretend that that’s what he did to support your preference (and mine BTW) that Latin should be used. You can support Latin in the liturgy, as I do, without bluffing your way into a claim that the Holy See has commanded Latin for any particular liturgy, which it has not.
Mark, I am not bluffing my way about anything. You’ve read what I posted on Sacramentum Caritatis. The Holy Father’s words are clear enough. In fact, he is leading by example. Just look at this previous World Youth Day. Look at the Masses that he celebrated while he was in Cyprus. Oddly enough, for those who still want to bring in the Eastern Rites into the picture, inasmuch as the Cypriot Catholics are mostly Eastern Rite, the Mass was celebrated in the Latin Rite and both English and Latin were used.BenedictGal, make sure you don’t overstate your case, which I regret to say you often do, especially considering as we probably 95% agree about the liturgy. The Holy Father did not say that Latin “is to be used,” he said he endorsed a proposal stating that it’s fitting that Latin be used. One would be a command; the other is a recommendation and exhortation. When the Holy Father decides that Latin is to be used, he will say, “Latin must be used.” Please don’t pretend that that’s what he did to support your preference (and mine BTW) that Latin should be used. You can support Latin in the liturgy, as I do, without bluffing your way into a claim that the Holy See has commanded Latin for any particular liturgy, which it has not.
Just look at the hostile reactions that are in this thread about Latin. Latin is the language of the Church, and yet, there are those in this thread who seem to have issues with its use.Mark, you make some valid points, but let’s be realistic. The Pope (or even Cardinal Arinze) will not say it must be in Latin as, for one thing, there may not be enough local knowledge of Latin to make it feasible. Second of all, he knows he will be met with hostile opposition if he issues a “must” of any kind. Pope John XXIII has stated about the strongest statement of Latin already in his Veterum Sapientia, including “must be taught” in seminaries, reinforced by current canon law (#249), and where did that get us? I would say at this point, if the Pope prefers it or that he recommends that we do it, let’s do it that way and let the chips fall where they may.
the hostility is not against Latin, but the attitude towards it by some here in this forumJust look at the hostile reactions that are in this thread about Latin. Latin is the language of the Church, and yet, there are those in this thread who seem to have issues with its use.
The bottom line is this. We need to read what the authoritative documents of the Church have to say and heed them. As I have stated repeatedly, there is nothing that would have precluded the folks organizing the particular Mass reported by the OP in such a way where different languages could have been used for the proclamation of the readings, inclusive of the psalm, and the general intercessions. In fact, that is what happens at a Papal Mass. The first reading is proclaimed in one language, the psalm is often chanted in Italian, the second reading is proclaimed in another language and the Gospel is chanted in Latin most of the time. The General Intercessions are proclaimed in a wide variety of languages, often between five and 10. For the Liturgy of the Eucharist, then the switch is made to Latin. What is so or offensive about following that model? It comes directly from Sacramentum Caritatis.
No, it’s not a false interpretation of the Church documents. Choy, have you actually read them? I believe that, with all due respect, is a fair question to ask. It seems as though when the issue of Latin comes up, you seem to disagree with its use.the hostility is not against Latin, but the attitude towards it by some here in this forum
and also from the false interpretation of Church documents to conform to a personal preference
He didn’t teach it in English, either. What’s your point? You contradict yourself by pointing out that Jesus didn’t teach us the Lord’s Prayer in Latin, yet you want to use your own language (a language Jesus didn’t speak).why is praying The Lord’s Prayer in Latin better than praying it in any other language. Jesus never even taught it in Latin. and that prayer was handed down to us for us to pray. so why can’t we pray it in our own language?
With respect, BG, again, it is a false interpretation of Sacramentum Caritatis to say that the Holy Father stated “that Latin is to be used in multi-lingual liturgies.” He said he’d like it, and that there are good reasons for it, and that it would be best practice, but not that it “is to be done.”No, it’s not a false interpretation of the Church documents. Choy, have you actually read them? I believe that, with all due respect, is a fair question to ask. It seems as though when the issue of Latin comes up, you seem to disagree with its use.
no i don’t. my point is that The Lord’s Prayer is of equal value no matter what language is used, so why restrict its use in Latin? i’m arguing that fact. one can’t defend that it is to be used in one language which is not the language Jesus used on earth. i did say that The Lord’s Prayer is a prayer handed to us, therefore we should be able to pray it in our own tongueHe didn’t teach it in English, either. What’s your point? You contradict yourself by pointing out that Jesus didn’t teach us the Lord’s Prayer in Latin, yet you want to use your own language (a language Jesus didn’t speak).
you have posted them time and time again. unless there is something else you are not posting and i am missing, i cannot see anywhere where it says that Latin is mandatory, in part or in full, in every Mass or in certain Masses which would fit the one described by the OPNo, it’s not a false interpretation of the Church documents. Choy, have you actually read them? I believe that, with all due respect, is a fair question to ask. It seems as though when the issue of Latin comes up, you seem to disagree with its use.
John XXIII hints otherwise. Your point is invalid.my point is that The Lord’s Prayer is of equal value no matter what language is used,
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.