Pope: Mass in vernacular helps people understand God, live the faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter OraLabora
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
theoda said:
[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

I don’t think there has been any time when a vernacular language was used. They probably used Hebrew in the early years. If there was a time, can you please find it?
Click to expand...
The language of the early Roman Rite before Gregory the Great was Greek ( the vernacular).

"The local church of Rome had begun as a Greek-speaking body; the majority of its members were Greek-speaking Levantines living in the foreign quarters of the city. But it began to use Latin in its liturgy, probably in the latter half of the second century, as the faith spread among the Latin-speaking inhabitants; though the use of Greek went on side by side with Latin down to the fourth-perhaps even the fifth century. Elsewhere in the West, for example in Africa, Latin had been used by the church from the second century.

holytrinitymission.org/books/english/early_christian_liturgics.htm#_Toc52771921
 
Michael_Mayo said:
The language of the early Roman Rite before Gregory the Great was Greek ( the vernacular).

"The local church of Rome had begun as a Greek-speaking body; the majority of its members were Greek-speaking Levantines living in the foreign quarters of the city. But it began to use Latin in its liturgy, probably in the latter half of the second century, as the faith spread among the Latin-speaking inhabitants; though the use of Greek went on side by side with Latin down to the fourth-perhaps even the fifth century. Elsewhere in the West, for example in Africa, Latin had been used by the church from the second century.

holytrinitymission.org/books/english/early_christian_liturgics.htm#_Toc52771921
Click to expand...
And there’s also the time of the Byzantine Papacy (when popes required to be approved by the Byzantine Emperor to be consecrated and were chosen from papal ambassadors to Constantinople or from areas of Italy that were under Byzantine control - in other words, when Byzantine influence was strong in Rome). And there was also this short-lived fad during the Carolingian period (7th-9th century) of translating the text of the Roman Mass into Greek, the so-called Missa graeca.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
The language of the early Roman Rite before Gregory the Great was Greek ( the vernacular).
Click to expand...
FWIW, Greek was probably also the language of pagan worship in the Greco-Roman world, much more predominant at that point.
 
ProVobis said:
Not if Scripture had been written in Hebrew up to that point.

FWIW, Greek was probably also the language of pagan worship in the Greco-Roman world, much more predominant at that point.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t want to guess. Jesus’ quotes in the Scripture were taken out of the Septuagint, which is in Greek. 🤷
 
Just a question from a rather dispassionate observer: why are we discussing Jesus’ language here? :cool: 🤷
 
theoda said:
If he says going back to Latin would be a mistake, then it would mean that Latin is inferior to the vernacular
Click to expand...
First, I do not think the pope said it would be a mistake to use or preserve the Old Latin Mass, because I think he himself has said the Old Latin Mass since he became pope and has called for its preservation.

Second, if the pope had said that it would be a mistake to go back to Latin, which I don’t think he did – but if he had, I don’t think it would necessarily follow that he thinks Latin is inferior to the vernacular. I think there can be reasons not to use something other than that you think it is inferior.
theoda said:
My argument was that vernacular languages should not be used, not non-Latin. There has never been a time when the vernacular was used for Mass.
Click to expand...
First, as others have pointed out, it is my understanding that everyday Latin used to be used when it was still the spoken language of Rome, and I think the same is true for the Greek used by many of the Eastern Fathers at Mass.

Second, if I understand you correctly, the distinction you are making between ancient Greek and everyday Greek also implies that “vernacular” language is not the same as “formal” language. Do you think that is a reasonable extrapolation from your point? Because I think the Mass as said today is said in formal language, not the kind of language one hears on the street, and thus I think a case could be made that the New Mass is not entirely in the vernacular, at least not if I’m understanding your definition of vernacular correctly.
[Trent] condemns anyone who says the Mass should be said entirely in the vernacular, which is what the New Mass is usually celebrated today.
Click to expand...
In the second part of your sentence you appear to admit that the New Mass is sometimes said not in the vernacular. Am I inferring that correctly? Because if I am, I think that solves the difficulty you seem to see: Trent appears to say that the Mass should not be said entirely in the vernacular, and the New Mass is not said entirely in the vernacular because it is sometimes said in Latin. What do you think of that argument?
 
ProVobis said:
But doctrine needs unchanging language to be expressed. 🙂
Click to expand...
If I remember right, the mid-term relatio in the synod last year was originally in Italian. I imagine if they used precise Latin there would have been far less controversy.
 
dmar198 said:
because he himself has said the Old Latin Mass since he became pope and has called for its preservation.
Click to expand...
I wish this were the case but do you have source for this? It seems your original link wasn’t very fruitful.
 
SWolf said:
If I remember right, the mid-term relatio in the synod last year was originally in Italian. I imagine if they used precise Latin there would have been far less controversy.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if there would have been less controversy but I suppose a case can be made that any doctrines discussed would have been less corrupted.
 
As an aside, when I was in college, my pastor told me that they no longer required Latin in many seminaries, including the one he went to. As such, there are many pastors out there (especially diocesan priests) who have very little, if any, knowledge of Latin. I would suspect that this, in and of itself, would be a huge stumbling block.

Regardless, the use of Latin was a changeable discipline, and only held for the Latin Rite. In this respect, it is similar to the requirement for priests in the Latin Rite to be celibate. As for “vernacular” being the “fruit of the Reformation”, IIRC, there were calls well before the “Reformation” for the Mass to be said in the vernacular. In addition, such claims could also be made for non-clerical studying of the Bible. It was discouraged before Vatican II because “only the Church can interpret the Bible”, which remains true.
 
powerofk said:
such claims could also be made for non-clerical studying of the Bible. It was discouraged before Vatican II because “only the Church can interpret the Bible”, which remains true.
Click to expand...
I thought there were many instances of pre-Vatican II popes, saints, and doctors of the Church encouraging non-clerics to study the Bible. Am I missing something?
 
Having posted this news item, perhaps it’s time I check in for a bit.

I go to Mass in a Benedictine monastery. I think it’s a pretty good representation of what Sacrosanctum Concilium intended.

The propers and ordinary are in Gregorian chant in Latin (with Kyrie in Greek of course). The rest is in French plainchant. The readings are chanted; the only part not chanted is the homily (and the odd announcement which are very infrequent, usually when there’s a special collection for missions, etc.). There’s incense, bells, and the pipe organ where appropriate, and not, when not appropriate (e.g. no organ in Lent except for Laetare Sunday).

Really, it’s very difficult to find fault with it other than the cantors missing a note from time to time or the deacon accidentally reading the wrong gospel. They’re human after all!

I think it points the way forward, should we care to pay attention. There’s no putting the genie back into the bottle. SC wanted full active participation in the Mass. In some places that might mean the vernacular, in other circumstances (such as the World Oblate’s Congress I attended and helped organize in Rome), Latin as a common language is most appropriate. We therefore shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I once had a long and fascinating discussion with our abbot, a very cultured man and an accomplished musician (organ and harpsichord). He is dead set against going back to the EF Mass, and had an excellent explanation for some of the accretions and difficulties with celebrating that Mass compared to the OF; I’ve forgotten too much about the conversation to repeat it here. But based on how the abbey does things, he is very much in favour of well-executed, dignified and reverent liturgies.

I think rather than going back, we need to dust off Sacrosanctum Concilium which appears to have been largely forgotten especially in our parishes, and try to bring back the sacredness to what we have.

That said I’m not suggesting we ban the EF Mass; however I do see a problem of internal division fomenting because of it. Any perusal of this forum should make that obvious. We need to find a way to deal with this division before the “Catholic” in Catholic Church becomes an oxymoron and we split into two distinct ecclesial communities that don’t talk to each other or talk past each other; my wife’s Anglican parish is a case in point, their own “Vatican II” spawned the Book of Alternative Services and that crowd won’t even speak to the Book of Common Prayer crowd, and the poor pastor is stuck in the middle being tugged on both sides. I don’t propose to know the solution, but I don’t think steering the OF mass to be closer to SC will do any harm!
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Regardless of the language both of these terms are beyond a single post explanation.
Click to expand...
Precisely my point. In these cases and in other cognate cases, the translation buys you nothing except appease those who have this mental block against anything that sounds Latin or Roman. Either that or satisfy their arrogance and/or ignorance, caring nothing about the probable corruption of the meaning behind the prayers.

And how much longer will the Latin Rite be identified as such if the Pope thinks the more vernacular/vulgar, the better?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top