The point is that he chose his words and phrases carefully and there is only one true version of Shakespeare, the poetry of which English scholars protect. One could say he created his own language. If it means anything, much of it was played out before it was written and I happen to own a 50’s copy of the Complete Works of Shakespeare. It’s much bigger than the Bible, believe me.Shakespreare has been translated to most languages, He wrote in the venacular of the day so his plays were understood. If he were writing today the style would be very much different.
I know what is going on in the mass and I do not just show up and go through the motions. I also do not think that changing the language to something that most people do not understand is going to help with those that do not understand, they are just going to understand less and most likely stop coming.The Church has operated using Latin as its language for 1500+ years. Many great works, hymns, and prayers were composed in Latin and not in other languages. The only Hebrew used in the Mass has typically been words like Amen, Alleluia, etc. Also, Jesus would have not used Aramaic in worship. He would have used the language reserved for worship which was Hebrew. Jews would have had to learn that language. In the same way, the Church used Latin (and still does) for worship and it was expected that Catholics would learn it.
Also, I’m not sure why people always think that going back to the beginning is more pure than the other 1500+ years of Church history.
It forces you to learn Latin and what is going on in the Mass rather than just showing up and going through the motions, no? I wonder how many people who show up to Mass every Sunday truly know why every part of the Mass is done the way it is?
There were many vernaculars at the time. Ecclesiastical Latin was not one of them.Also, please keep in mind, that when the Church started using Latin, it was the vernacular for large portions of the Church population.
This is a battle that is well over. It was closed with the issuance of the 3rd revsion of the English language missal. All other languages are following suite.Settled, shmettled. As though major wars have never been started by misinterpretations and mistranslations? If we were all on the same wavelength, literally, the problems of the world would be minimal.
does no good if there is one true version and no one can understand it. It becomes meaningless, a beating drum of noise and no purpose.The point is that he chose his words and phrases carefully and there is only one true version of Shakespeare, the poetry of which English scholars protect. One could say he created his own language. If it means anything, much of it was played out before it was written and I happen to own a 50’s copy of the Complete Works of Shakespeare. It’s much bigger than the Bible, believe me.
Why is “he looking to implement the documents” if, as you claim, it has already been done? He is asking “But after 50 years, have we done everything that the Holy Spirit said to us in the Council?” and his answer is no.This is a battle that is well over. It was closed with the issuance of the 3rd revsion of the English language missal. All other languages are following suite.
Since it is the bishops who translate and interpet, they have made the decisions. Pope Francis does not seem the type that is going to revisit it again. From his statements he is looking to implament and move forward with the documents. The same can be observed from his selctions for advisors, not the old guard that has been in the Vatican. It looks as though he is opening the windows again.
Isn’t this what they said after the first translation back in the late 60’s?This is a battle that is well over.
So by that logic you would dump all the available Hebrew texts simply because you found no one to read and explain Hebrew? Or German scientifical studies, for that matter? What’s wrong with putting in a little effort to try to understand them, especially when given a side-by-side? “Dominus vobiscum” isn’t exactly nuclear physics.does no good if there is one true version and no one can understand it.
There is much of the documents that have yet to be fully realized. They went much deeper than just the change in liturgy. I am agreeing with my pope that not all has been done, Iam only indicating that the discussion on the liturgy, the use of the venacular , the form of the mass is all but over. there will be some continual tweeking by bishops, but to think that there will be any focus on the Latin mass is misplaced.Why is “he looking to implement the documents” if, as you claim, it has already been done? He is asking “But after 50 years, have we done everything that the Holy Spirit said to us in the Council?” and his answer is no.
First is would take more than a little effort, second I am more interested in putting the word of Jesus into practice. I trust the interpetations that have been done over many years by those who have made that part of the ministery their life. No reason to reinvent the wheel.So by that logic you would dump all the available Hebrew texts simply because you found no one to read and explain Hebrew? Or German scientifical studies, for that matter? What’s wrong with putting in a little effort to try to understand them, especially when given a side-by-side? “Dominus vobiscum” isn’t exactly nuclear physics.
The revised translation is still in venacular, only updated. There are better things to focus on.Isn’t this what they said after the first translation back in the late 60’s?
and what about the people from the beginning of the Church’s use in Latin until the 1960s whose first language wasn’t Latin? Also, even in the time of Rome, Latin wasn’t spoken everywhere. Many people still continued to speak their own language and then had to learn Latin as necessary. Just in the same way that the Jews spoke their own languages and learned Greek (as was spoken in much of the Eastern Empire) as necessary while they were under Roman control.Also, please keep in mind, that when the Church started using Latin, it was the vernacular for large portions of the Church population.
It’s interesting you mentioned this because even the most reformed Jewish congregations still read the Torah in Hebrew, not the vernacular (as far as I know). Why wouldn’t we make sure we keep Latin in the Mass at least in some parts?Also, Jesus would have not used Aramaic in worship. He would have used the language reserved for worship which was Hebrew. Jews would have had to learn that language. In the same way, the Church used Latin (and still does) for worship and it was expected that Catholics would learn it.
…
Most rites have an original language which also gives each rite its historical identity. The Roman Rite has Latin as its official language. The typical editions of its liturgical books are to this day issued in Latin.
It is a remarkable phenomenon that many religions of the world, or major branches of them, hold on to a language as dear to them. We cannot think of the Jewish religion without Hebrew. Islam holds Arabic as sacred to the Qur’an. Classical Hinduism considers Sanskrit its official language. Buddhism has its sacred texts in Pali.
It would be superficial to dismiss this tendency as esoteric, or strange, or outmoded, old or medieval. That would be to ignore a fine element of human psychology. In religious matters, people tend to hold on to what they received from the beginning, how their earliest predecessors articulated their religion and prayed. Words and formulae used by earlier generations are dear to those who today inherit from them. While a religion is of course not identified with a language, how it understands itself can have an affective link with a particular linguistic expression in its classical period of growth.
…
Your example is not a very good one.It’s interesting you mentioned this because even the most reformed Jewish congregations still read the Torah in Hebrew, not the vernacular (as far as I know). Why wouldn’t we make sure we keep Latin in the Mass at least in some parts?
I am not aware of any official statements that there is nothing further to be done on the liturgy. That sure is not what it looks like when I read Sacrosanctum Concilium Perhaps you are happy with the liturgy, but there is no reason to claim this is the view of the Church.There is much of the documents that have yet to be fully realized. They went much deeper than just the change in liturgy. I am agreeing with my pope that not all has been done, Iam only indicating that the discussion on the liturgy, the use of the venacular , the form of the mass is all but over. there will be some continual tweeking by bishops, but to think that there will be any focus on the Latin mass is misplaced.
Archaeologists say otherwise.It was only at a later time, when Latin was the lingua franca, that all things ended up in Latin. So to say that Latin was “from the beginning” is itself an appeal to a history that never happened.
I never said that it had to be the language from the beginning. Even if Latin was the language for the last 1500 years, I still think that to rid ourselves of it completely is wrong. And for the thousandth time on this forum the Vatican II documents never called to rid ourselves of it completely. Why is there such a push to get rid of it?? It is part of our heritage at the very least. Where is the respect for that?Your example is not a very good one.
So far as I remember, the Torah has been in Hebrew from time immemorial. Sure, there was a translation into Greek (the Septuagint), but it wasn’t used for services.
Christianity probably started out in Aramaic or Greek, and Jesus himself most likely did not speak Latin (if any, it would have been some vulgar/trade Latin). The New Testament was itself written in Koine Greek (what did you think Paul wrote in?). That’s important, because Koine was the common Greek (as opposed to Attic Greek) which was spoken by the people.
It was only at a later time, when Latin was the lingua franca, that all things ended up in Latin. So to say that Latin was “from the beginning” is itself an appeal to a history that never happened.
So you see, although you might see a parallell, it simply does not exist. There’s also the fact that the Eastern Christian churches have never used Latin, so in the wider Christian context you can’t appeal to Latin as “the language for Christians” or as a “sacred” language.
That really only leaves you a cultural argument, and the influence of the “Latin West” is really dead. The biggest influence of contemporary times (in the western world) was the British (notice how this here forum is in english) and in Northern (non-Nordic) Europe it was Germany. Latin hasn’t even been used academically in the majority (in the West) is some 200 years. I’m sorry, but Latin is no longer part of our culture (except as a small influence on our language, and even then it has to compete with the German and French influences, which are much greater).
Really fascinating article on the council, which provides a ton of great information on how the documents of the council were developed. A link to Benedict XVI’s audience in the last days of his pontificate where he addressed many aspects of Vatican II is also included in the text.Up to the final days of his pontificate, Benedict XVI emphasized the importance of interpreting the Council in continuity with what came before it.
Pope John XXIII, who called the Second Vatican Council, seemed to think retaining Latin was pretty important.Your example is not a very good one.
So far as I remember, the Torah has been in Hebrew from time immemorial. Sure, there was a translation into Greek (the Septuagint), but it wasn’t used for services.
Christianity probably started out in Aramaic or Greek, and Jesus himself most likely did not speak Latin (if any, it would have been some vulgar/trade Latin). The New Testament was itself written in Koine Greek (what did you think Paul wrote in?). That’s important, because Koine was the common Greek (as opposed to Attic Greek) which was spoken by the people.
It was only at a later time, when Latin was the lingua franca, that all things ended up in Latin. So to say that Latin was “from the beginning” is itself an appeal to a history that never happened.
So you see, although you might see a parallell, it simply does not exist. There’s also the fact that the Eastern Christian churches have never used Latin, so in the wider Christian context you can’t appeal to Latin as “the language for Christians” or as a “sacred” language.
That really only leaves you a cultural argument, and the influence of the “Latin West” is really dead. The biggest influence of contemporary times (in the western world) was the British (notice how this here forum is in english) and in Northern (non-Nordic) Europe it was Germany. Latin hasn’t even been used academically in the majority (in the West) is some 200 years. I’m sorry, but Latin is no longer part of our culture (except as a small influence on our language, and even then it has to compete with the German and French influences, which are much greater).