Pope Benedict Wants Mass Translation Changed from 'For All' to 'For Many'

[ProVobis]

Jesus still spoke aramaic and the recordings are called the gospels.

I think you missed my point. What difference does it make what language He spoke if no one knows exactly what He said? Anyone can pull some Aramaic words out of the air and claim this is what Jesus said simply because it’s Aramaic.

Fact is we only have eyewitness accounts to what He said and this been translated a few times. Maybe even from Greek to Greek to Greek, paraphrasing each time. Yes, these would be recordings but each one becomes that much more removed from the original. Errors do creep up in handwriting and copying and paraphrasing. And we all know translations between languages, even ancient ones whose nuances don’t vary that much, aren’t infallible.

That said, I think the Maronite liturgy with its Aramaic/Syriac consecration is beautiful and may we have more of them. I’d certainly prefer them to English.

 

[ProVobis]

Also that is for the priests, and has practical application and is also feasible. For the laity it is first not practical because people would benefit much more from their native language than Latin and it isn’t feasible. I don’t understand why people think Latin is so great, yes the clergy use it but that is for historical reasons …

If it’s just for the priests, how long do you think Latin can be sustained? Do only the clergy read Church documents and Cicero?

You seem to make it sound that Latin has become a language of some secret code which no one should really care about. Can’t there be a study of Latin (or Greek or Aramaic or Sanskrit, for that matter) simply for appreciation, even if most people would rather speak their native tongue?

 

[ProVobis]

Yes the pope that started Vatican II and the movement of the liturgy to the vernacular language.

How did he start the movement toward the vernacular? The Pope who convened Vatican II never signed a single document of it.

…he actually wanted those who saw the mass to UNDERSTAND IT, why is the so horrible?

So how has the all-vernacular worked out in understanding the Mass better?

 

[JaMc]

How did he start the movement toward the vernacular? The Pope who convened Vatican II never signed a single document of it.

So how has the all-vernacular worked out in understanding the Mass better?

One question I would have is, if John XXIII had intended for a complete re-working of the Mass to what is now the Ordinary Form, why did he bother with the revisions to the Missal in 1962?

I suppose we may never know, since he did not survive to the end of the Council.

 

[LittleSoldier]

“Multitude” is a cognate of multis and has a different meaning than “many” which doesn’t distinguish between multis, pluris, or plurimus, the various degrees of the very vague “many.”

If more literal translations are the objective, then “multitude” or any cognate of multis in whatever language would be more in line with this objective, IMO. Pieri’s point is valid.

I agree.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Remember when Bishop Basil still posted here? Anyway, I thought the Eastern Rites traditionally used Old Church Slavonic as their ecclesiastical language, but someone more knowledgable about the Eastern Rites than I could offer more comment than I ever could.

Also remember, the EF Mass DOES have some Greek in it (as do many OF Masses): “Kyrie Eleision, Christe Eleision, Kyrie Eleision”

That being said, I think there is some merit in using a neutral language like Latin, that isn’t constantly changing, and constantly requiring updated translations (which ANY vernacular language would - think, for a minute, if the Mass was in English hundreds of years ago. Anyone read an original verson of Chaucer lately?). Musical terms are all in Italian, many scientific and medical terms are in Latin, why not have a standardized language for (at least the Western) Church?

And that is why I am trying to learn Latin. Unfortunately, it is a very difficult language to learn:

“Latin is a language
as dead as it can be.
First it killed the Romans,
and now it’s killing me.” (author unknown)

I’m still plugging away at it but it’s hard. And I agree with you - the Church *needs *a language that has not been corrupted over the centuries. We don’t even need to go back to the times of Chaucer - how about the English word “gay?”

 

[JoeBowen7]

And that is why I am trying to learn Latin. Unfortunately, it is a very difficult language to learn:

But other languages are more difficult:
Hungarian, Arabic, written Chinese, etc.

 

[ProVobis]

But other languages are more difficult:
Hungarian, Arabic, written Chinese, etc.

You could say that. Many of these other languages require you to learn an entire new alphabet before you even begin. Whereas it is estimated that over a half of the world’s population already uses the Latin alphabet.

 

[ProVobis]

One question I would have is, if John XXIII had intended for a complete re-working of the Mass to what is now the Ordinary Form, why did he bother with the revisions to the Missal in 1962?

A question many in the Church are still asking. It should be noted that Bugnini was originally hired to reform the liturgy by Pius XII. He changed the liturgy of Holy Week in 1955 and supposedly had designs for further changes. John XXIII fired him because, it is guessed, that he (John XXIII) opposed any simplification of the Mass. Once Montini became Pope Paul V, he rehired Bugnini and the rest is history.

 

[ProVobis]

What type of recordings are you looking for?

I started to say that just because we find words to fit the original language doesn’t always work out to be the best. For example, most translators have renditioned Sursum corda to “Lift up your hearts” in English. But if we translate our translation back to the Latin, we end up with something like Levate corda vestra, which is somewhat different from the original Latin. As all the original NT documents have been lost, I suspect most Aramaic renditions to Greek to another Greek and back to Aramaic could have encountered similar problems. We’ll just have to trust St. Jerome, who was knowledgeable in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and also the Latin Vulgate. (As well as the Greek Vulgate.)

 

[dean24us]

Also that is for the priests, and has practical application and is also feasible. For the laity it is first not practical because people would benefit much more from their native language than Latin and it isn’t feasible. I don’t understand why people think Latin is so great, yes the clergy use it but that is for historical reasons not because it is “God’s language” or theologically better.

Total agreement with your assessment. I have never understood the “Latin is better” crowd… Latin was simply the most common language at the time the Church was formed, hence the reason it was chosen as the “Universal Language” for the “Universal Church”. So, in that sense, Latin WAS the vernacular language at the time it was chosen for use – it was a pragmatic choice.

God bless,
Dean

 

[LittleSoldier]

But other languages are more difficult:
Hungarian, Arabic, written Chinese, etc.

Yes, they are. I think that even English is a difficult language to learn.

I can learn Latin. It will take some time but I will learn.

 

[ProVobis]

So, in that sense, Latin WAS the vernacular language at the time it was chosen for use – it was a pragmatic choice.

No. Vulgar Latin was the vernacular language at the time. This is the language which morphed into the Romance languages we have today, such as Spanish, Italian, French, etc.

Some of the differences between Vulgar Latin and Classic Latin are given here in a document found from around the 3rd century.

ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/germanic/appendix_probi.html