Peter & Paul Established Latin as the Ligurgical Language in Rome

[Lisa44]

And yet, the Holy See, which holds Christ’s authority, differed with you in that opinion. Even when they permitted “for all,” they clearly stated that it would not adversely affect the confection of the Holy Sacrifice. When they decided that a closer translation was, after all more desireable, they again reassured the faithful that “for all” had not rendered the Holy Sacrifice invalid (the Popes themselves used “for all” when offering the Mass in English speaking countries).

Hi JKirkLVNV

If that is a closer translation, then why isn’t the bible translated that way? What do you mean a “closer translation” than the bible?

I am not aware of a single bible that translates as “all”

bible.cc/matthew/26-28.htm

 

[Lisa44]

You still can, you know. I’ve prayed the Mass when it was offered in Spanish.

Hi again
I meant being able to pray the prayers, not silently in your head in a different language, outloud with everyone.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I know, I just saw you on the thread and wanted to bug you.

Ah, sorry! Consider me bugged!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hi JKirkLVNV

If that is a closer translation, then why isn’t the bible translated that way? What do you mean a “closer translation” than the bible?

I am not aware of a single bible that translates as “all”

bible.cc/matthew/26-28.htm

A translation closer to the standard text, which is in Latin. No one reasonably argues that “pro multis” means “for all” (that would be “pro omnia”) any more than anyone would reasonably argue that Christ did not die “for all,” but that His Atoning Death is only effectual for those who believe and follow Him.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hi again
I meant being able to pray the prayers, not silently in your head in a different language, outloud with everyone.

Well, I suppose it depends on which Form you are attending. ** *Typically, ***in the EF, the laity do not make responses out loud, so it wouldn’t matter if it were in Latin. And if you don’t really speak Latin, you could still make the responses as best you could in the local vernacular if you were attending an OF Mass by following along in the Missal. Spanish is not more difficult to pronounce than Latin, I can assure you.

I very much doubt that the vernacular Mass is going away. Cardinal Arinze has said as much (though cardinals express opinions about a great number of things) and the Holy Father has called the vernacular Mass “helpful.”

 

[Toribus]

It’s not going away yet, but by the time I’m an old man there might be talk.

I won’t be an old man for a very long time, though.

In my first month in Japan I heard Mass in Japanese, Spanish, Portuguese and “English” (which was really Tagalog with a Japanese homily and an English canon).

I understood 20% of the Japanese, 50% of the Spanish, 80% of the “English”, none of the Portuguese, and probably won’t understand any of the Korean tomorrow. There isn’t a single Latin mass in this entire ecclesiastical province, despite belonging entirely to the Latin rite. It really makes me sad.

(there is actually an SSPX mass or two, but I’m too well informed to claim ignorance of my canonical responsibilities regarding them)

 

[guanophore]

Can you offer proof that it was so? If you can then you are able to do what scholars throughout the centuries have been unable to do, that is produce a genuine order of the mass from the beginning.

However we do have descriptions of the celebration of the Eucharist from the end of the first century that show that it was very loose and not very formal. See Justin’s First Apology. The celebration of the Eucharist, from early on, was not modeled after Jewish Temple worship or Synagogue gatherings but the Jewish Berekah and Todah prayers which occured at family meals.

The order of the Mass is taken right out of the order of the synagogue service. This is easy to see even if one attends a modern synagogue. The language of the consecration is taken directly from the prayers used at the Passover.

What makes you think that Justin’s account is “loose”? It is clearly the same order of the Liturgy that is used all over the world, both East and West.

 

[Lisa44]

Well, I suppose it depends on which Form you are attending. ** *Typically, ***in the EF, the laity do not make responses out loud, so it wouldn’t matter if it were in Latin. And if you don’t really speak Latin, you could still make the responses as best you could in the local vernacular if you were attending an OF Mass by following along in the Missal. Spanish is not more difficult to pronounce than Latin, I can assure you.

I very much doubt that the vernacular Mass is going away. Cardinal Arinze has said as much (though cardinals express opinions about a great number of things) and the Holy Father has called the vernacular Mass “helpful.”

Hi again

What does “helpful” mean? My drug dealer is “helpful” in getting me drugs. (example)

I still think there should be one universal Mass. Otherwise the church will break apart like the Protestants broke into a thousand pieces.

 

[guanophore]

Ecclesiastical Latin is the Angelic Language. It is the language of Holy Mother Church. It’s the language of The Mass of the Ages. It’s the language that spread the Faith to every corner of the Western World.

You make an escellent point. Latin became the linquistic currency of the Western World, This historical phenomenon in no way invalidates the older liturgies and works that were composed in Syrian, Aramaic, and Greek. The Gk. Churches in Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism are no less" angelic" because they are not in Latin.

 

[Joannm]

The order of the Mass is taken right out of the order of the synagogue service. This is easy to see even if one attends a modern synagogue. The language of the consecration is taken directly from the prayers used at the Passover.

What makes you think that Justin’s account is “loose”? It is clearly the same order of the Liturgy that is used all over the world, both East and West.

There is no evidence of formal daily prayer gatherings in synagogues at the very least into the second century and maybe into the third, and there is sketchy evidence of what form these prayers took at this time.

The Eucharist is modeled after the meal prayers in the home. Justin’s description is loose because he basically leaves it up to the presider to pray extemporaneously.

"and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. "

While there may be a pattern there is no set Church order of prayer (as in set texts) for the celebration of the Eucharist. Even the Didache does not give specific prayers but simply gives a description of a Eucharistic and an Agape meal. The Eucharistic prayers come from the Berekah prayers at meals, but were probably not formally set. This was fused with a synagogue style “liturgy of the word” once the ancient Christians were forced out of the synagogues.

The point of all this is that no where in early texts describing the Eucharistic celebration does it say it was said in Latin until we get to the use of it in North Africa around the 4th century.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hi again

What does “helpful” mean? My drug dealer is “helpful” in getting me drugs. (example)

I still think there should be one universal Mass. Otherwise the church will break apart like the Protestants broke into a thousand pieces.

“Helpful” would mean “good for peopel” or “helpful to people,” “of an aid,” “of assistance.”

There already is one universal Mass. It has two forms in the Latin Rite, the EF and the OF. It is also the Divine Liturgy as offered by the Eastern Rite Churches in union with the See of Peter.

If you think that the Church will break apart, then I have to wonder at the catechesis you received. The Church will never break apart, as per Christ’s promise. Your assertion isn’t terribly Catholic. For that matter, it is terribly “traditional Catholic.”

 

[jmcrae]

Hi again
I meant being able to pray the prayers, not silently in your head in a different language, outloud with everyone.

In the Latin Mass, only the Altar servers are allowed to pray the responses out loud. The congregation is supposed to keep silent throughout the whole thing, except for the prayers that are prayed in English at the very end.

 

[Lisa44]

In the Latin Mass, only the Altar servers are allowed to pray the responses out loud. The congregation is supposed to keep silent throughout the whole thing, except for the prayers that are prayed in English at the very end.

Hi jmcrae
That is sortof what I figured. I know someone who doesn’t “actively” participate in the NO Mass and I think that is why is they were raised to be silent. But as a convert I would rather be silent, but I feel like I have to “actively” participate in the NO or I’m being disrespectful. Its kindof confusing. Is the “active” participation in the NO optional?

 

[Aramis]

Hi again

What does “helpful” mean? My drug dealer is “helpful” in getting me drugs. (example)

I still think there should be one universal Mass. Otherwise the church will break apart like the Protestants broke into a thousand pieces.

And you run counter to the validity and worth of the Eastern Catholic churches, the “Other Lung” of Pope JP II’s speeches (Pope Benedict does NOT mean the same in his use of the term). And of the decrees of Vatican II. And of Popes Pius IX, X, XI, XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI. All of which point to the value of the different expressions of the catholic faith and the value of the diversity of rites.

Without such diversity, I’d have left the Catholic church and never looked back in my early 20’s.

 

[guanophore]

When I think “universal church” I think “universal” language. If every Mass was in Latin, I could go anywhere in the world and pray with Catholics.

Certainly if one was a member of the Latin Rite. This is also true for all those members of Gk. based liturgies. It is this thinking, that theLatin Rite is the only one, that is one of the factors that precipitated the schism in the first place. It is small minded.

Ecclesiastical Latin is not a dead language. The Mass spread the faith. The Mass was in Latin. It united all in His Name.

At least those in the Latin Rite.

The Gregorian Mass, prayed in Latin, and the return to traditional Catholic schooling is the only way out of this mess. And they better do it quick, because we are running out of priests.

This is a peculiarity of the Latin Rite. But I think there are plenty of people called to the priesthood. They are not getting the support and guidance that they need. Pray that God will send wokers into the field.

There is no reliable documentation of any angel speaking Latin. It is the language of Holy Mother Church, but She has permitted other languages to be used as well. It is the language of the Extraordinary Form and it is also the language of the Ordinary Form (which was promulgated in Latin), but again, the Church has permitted other languages to be used as well (and not merely in the post-Vatican II Church, she permitted it centuries ago in Slavonic and in Chinese). It was the liturgical language used WHEN the Faith was spread to every corner of the Western world.

It is the language for the Latin Rite. The other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome are not less “official” because their liturgies are not Latin based.

The Faith was spread much further around the world in Grk.

 

[guanophore]

There is no evidence of formal daily prayer gatherings in synagogues at the very least into the second century and maybe into the third, and there is sketchy evidence of what form these prayers took at this time.

I am curious how you explain that the modern day synagogue service is so similar to that of the Mass, and why Justin’s account reflects that same sequence. All the first Christians were Hebrews, and continued to attend synagogue until they were expelled.

The Eucharist is modeled after the meal prayers in the home. Justin’s description is loose because he basically leaves it up to the presider to pray extemporaneously.

Ok. The words of the consecration are taken from the Passover.

While there may be a pattern there is no set Church order of prayer (as in set texts) for the celebration of the Eucharist. Even the Didache does not give specific prayers but simply gives a description of a Eucharistic and an Agape meal. The Eucharistic prayers come from the Berekah prayers at meals, but were probably not formally set. This was fused with a synagogue style “liturgy of the word” once the ancient Christians were forced out of the synagogues.

I notice that the order has not changed since Justin wrote about it…

The point of all this is that no where in early texts describing the Eucharistic celebration does it say it was said in Latin until we get to the use of it in North Africa around the 4th century.

Yes, this has been my observation also.

 

[jimmy]

Latin and Greek were some vernacular languages of the time. If any particular language (such as Greek) were set out for the liturgy, it becomes a liturgical language. Meaning, the Mass was not necessarily said in the native/preferred tongue of every region, was it?

Christ Himself, and the Jews of his time, used a liturgical language - Jewish. Jewish was to their vernacular Aramaic as Latin is to us westerners today.

As for ‘who cares’, that certainly does shove a great bit of Church history - at least 1300 years - under the table, doesn’t it? Just who was running the Church and why were they so silly as to adopt a liturgical language?

The vernacular was used. In Syriac speaking areas it was Syriac that was used. From the earliest times of the Church we can see the development of a specifically Syriac liturgy and theology. Even within the Syriac regions there are different dialects used. Coptic was used. Greek was used. So was Latin. When Sts. Cyril and Methodius converted the slavs they used the vernacular tongue with a Greek alphabet. The vernacular was used in all places.

 

[jimmy]

This is how Providence guided the Church. It is a clear sign of God’s favor and love of this Latin language, that He made it the language of the Church.

If you do not understand how Providence works throughout all our lives and especially through the Church, then you do not understand this. But if you do, you do.

You need to not set aside the clear truths of the Faith such as the actions of Providence simply because you have some sort of bias.

You should also admit that providence guided the Church to change the liturgy into the vernacular.

 

[Shin]

You should also admit that providence guided the Church to change the liturgy into the vernacular.

Certainly, though I could argue His motivations in doing it, and His active and permissive will.

Sometimes He lets us have what we want even when it isn’t good for us, or we will go too far with it. Sometimes He punishes us with what we ask for. Sometimes simply letting us have our own way is a horrendous punishment.

ICEL is a good example of this.

The implementation of discipline in the Church is mingled with human frailty. Remember King Saul.

Or I am thinking of King Stork and the Frogs. . .

We have always and continue to be instructed to retain more Latin than we have, and it is perfectly possible to say the OF in Latin entirely.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi jmcrae
That is sortof what I figured. I know someone who doesn’t “actively” participate in the NO Mass and I think that is why is they were raised to be silent. But as a convert I would rather be silent, but I feel like I have to “actively” participate in the NO or I’m being disrespectful. Its kindof confusing. Is the “active” participation in the NO optional?

Not really, because the people are expected to do the responses, in the Ordinary Form.

But just for yourself as an individual, and especially as a convert, you are not expected to know everything all at once. My suggestion would be to participate silently until you reach the point where it becomes comfortable for you to participate with the responses, after having become more familiar with them, rather than make yourself anxious over the issue.

Some things will come easier than others, so, after you’ve given yourself a few weeks to just listen to it silently, feel free to ease into it gradually, beginning with the easier parts and then moving on to the more complex ones.