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

[Seamus_L]

I seriously doubt that I would have returned to the Church about 18 years ago, if not for the Latin Mass.

 

[pnewton]

If I were to consider leaving the Catholic Church, the one TRUE Church because of Latin…I’d have to seriously question where my heart was and get my priorities set straight. Just my :twocents:.

Peace, Mark

I seriously doubt that I would have returned to the Church about 18 years ago, if not for the Latin Mass.

While on one hand, no one should ever make the language of the Mass an issue upon which they place their salvation, there is something to be said for trying to reach all persons, in all ways. Clergy have to decide and balance what is best in their circumstance to reach as many as possible. In places where the population density allows many option, then the choice is easier, as one can have a parish that has a lot of Latin, or uses the Extraordinary Form, and then increase or decrease based on need.

 

[Pulvis]

I just love these debates on latin. Some of the respondents so adamant that the common tongues are the only way we can learn and understand the Faith leave me with a question. How did the Catholic Faith spread across the entire world for over 1,962 years prior to Sacrosanctum Concillium? I mean how did anyone without the ability to interpret liturgical latin ever learn the Faith? How did the Church grow as she did with only latin?

Mild sarcasm intended.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I just love these debates on latin. Some of the respondents so adamant that the common tongues are the only way we can learn and understand the Faith leave me with a question. How did the Catholic Faith spread across the entire world for over 1,962 years prior to Sacrosanctum Concillium? I mean how did anyone without the ability to interpret liturgical latin ever learn the Faith? How did the Church grow as she did with only latin?

Mild sarcasm intended.

Most likely in spite of, rather than because of Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

How did the Catholic Faith spread across the entire world for over 1,962 years prior to Sacrosanctum Concillium? I mean how did anyone without the ability to interpret liturgical latin ever learn the Faith? How did the Church grow as she did with only latin?

It is a fact that the Church grew only with the Latin. Why? There is no real simple answer but here’s an article I think is worth reading though. Actually it consists of five articles. It deals much with the different types and levels of participation.

lmschairman.org/search/label/Death%20of%20the%20Reform%20of%20the%20Reform

Some excerpts:

…
To say the Vetus Ordo operates at another level is to state the obvious. You can’t even hear the most important bits - they are said silently. If you could hear them, they’d be in Latin. And yet, somehow, it has its supporters. It communicates something, not in spite of these barriers to verbal communication, but by means of the very things which are clearly barriers to verbal communication. The silence and the Latin are indeed among the most effective means the Vetus Ordo employs to communicate what it communicates: the mysterium tremendum, the amazing reality of God made present in the liturgy.
…

…How was it all those saints were formed by the liturgy? Contrary to the patronising assumptions of scholars like Josef Jungmann, they were participating, they were understanding, despite not hearing the words of the Canon, despite not understanding the Latin even when they did hear it. They understood it at a profound, contemplative level. This kind of engagement with the liturgy was, in fact, particularly intense, because it is not just intellectual. Don’t believe me: believe the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was composed when non-verbal communication was beginning to creep back into theology.
…

 

[Tom_Baum]

Why is there this assumption Protestants don’t understand Latin? After all it was taught in public schools probably more than in Catholic schools. And it was the Anglicans who petitioned Pope Paul to reinstate the Latin Mass. Also more recently the mayor of London expressed his thoughts that it was “absurd” to drop Latin out of the curriculum.

You wrote, “Why is there this assumption Protestants don’t understand Latin?”

You must have been the one to have assumed something since what I wrote had nothing to do with assuming anyone couldn’t understand Latin, it was about Bishops who could NOT understand Latin to a degree to converse in it.

What I wrote was, “As another aside, I went to a discussion concerning Vatican II and it was said that many of the Bishops were at a loss in that they were NOT conversational conversant in Latin, basically knowing enough Latin for theological purposes such as the Mass, and did not have translators which the Protestant observers were supplied with.”

I assumed NOTHING, I merely made a comment concerning something that I was taught about Vatican II and that being that some of the Bishops were not conversant in Latin and that they were not given translators whereas Protestant observers were.

Maybe some, maybe none of the Protestants needed translators, do you know?

 

[Tom_Baum]

And that explanation never took place, even in the Latin days. “One in being with the Father” at least made some sense, though not as close a word for word translatrion. I guess that brings us to formal correspondence or dynamic equivalence approach’

You wrote, ““One in being with the Father” at least made some sense,”

I agree with you, especially since God Is a Being of Love.

 

[Tom_Baum]

You know what I find particularly disturbing? The insinuation by some on this and other threads that they would consider abandoning the Church altogether if the Latin Mass would ever make a return. The TLM is the only Mass that Thérèse of Lisieux and many of our Great Saints ever knew! If I were to consider leaving the Catholic Church, the one TRUE Church because of Latin…I’d have to seriously question where my heart was and get my priorities set straight. Just my :twocents:.

Peace, Mark

I don’t know about “a lot” but many did leave the Church because of Latin, didn’t they?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I don’t know about “a lot” but many did leave the Church because of Latin, didn’t they?

The loss of Latin was part of it but it seemed to be the overall overhaul of so many things at one time. They confused disciplines with teachings and thought it was all being pulled out from under them. A few even became sedevacantist.

I lived through the changes and wish much would have stayed but then also much needed to changed. I still believe the Holy Spirit has guided the changes and will continue to guide the Church without fail.

 

[ProVobis]

I assumed NOTHING

I’m sorry if I implied that.

Maybe some, maybe none of the Protestants needed translators, do you know?

I haven’t the slightest idea, to tell you the truth. But I have heard Protestant ministers using Latin and Greek a lot in their sermons.

 

[OraLabora]

Don’t blame the vernacular for an inaccurate translation. Yet even that is better than no translation to one who does not know Latin.

To be fair though, missals had the vernacular alongside the Latin.

I concede thought that it would be difficult to follow the Latin for some language groups. Imagine for example having Chinese along the Latin. Not the same alphabet, not the same characters, no idea how the Latin alphabet translates into pronunciation to be able to know what was going on. I suppose one could see and with rubrics (in Chinese) figure it out… but far from ideal if you ask me.

The vernacular clearly became increasingly needed as the Church reached out into the far corners of the world.

What I don’t like though is that Latin gets completely tossed aside. We have such a rich patrimony of music in Latin, to toss it out is akin to destroying a national monument.

 

[ProVobis]

Imagine for example having Chinese along the Latin.

Shouldn’t be that much harder than translating Shakespeare, for example, into Chinese.

csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2014/1205/Shakespeare-in-Shanghai-The-Bard-takes-China-by-storm

But how do you preserve that distinguishing period of English in Chinese?

The vernacular clearly became increasingly needed as the Church reached out into the far corners of the world.

To evangelize, definitely. But, as a method of worship, not necessarily. I believe many other religions don’t worship in vernacular.

 

[pnewton]

I mean how did anyone without the ability to interpret liturgical latin ever learn the Faith? How did the Church grow as she did with only latin?

Mild sarcasm intended.

The Church grew because of the Roman Empire. If you recall history, Rome controlled much of the western world. Latin was the vernacular of the Empire and even where it was not the native tongue, it was still spoken. The argument that Latin was in use when the Church exploded on the scene, is an argument for a language which is most universally understood, not that Latin is somehow a magical language. An understanding of the supernatural influence in the early church should begin and end with the Holy Spirit, not the language used.

 

[Pulvis]

The Church grew because of the Roman Empire. If you recall history, Rome controlled much of the western world. Latin was the vernacular of the Empire and even where it was not the native tongue, it was still spoken. The argument that Latin was in use when the Church exploded on the scene, is an argument for a language which is most universally understood, not that Latin is somehow a magical language. An understanding of the supernatural influence in the early church should begin and end with the Holy Spirit, not the language used.

While I will agree with the expansion during the Roman period, that does not explain the following expansion into northern Europe, the British Isles, Africa and the entirety of South and Central America, and Asia after the fall of Rome. Missionaries, mostly Jesuits, moved across the world teaching the Faith. I am certain they learned the local vernacular to educate the inhabitants, yet no one tampered with the Mass. It was never seen as a problem. A universal Church with a Universal language to worship. My personal take, from what I have studied, is this entire debate is more anchored in the move to a more anthropocentric style of worship coming out of the “spirit” of Vatican II rather than the actual emphasis of S.C. One may argue as to the reasoning behind this, I think it was an ecumenical intent for unification with the protestants, but regardless it was sloppy, heavy handed, and left much of our heritage and culture on the cutting room floor. The Tridentine Mass changed very little From St. Gregory the Great until Vatican II. The history of the period, the Saints formed and fed by that Mass, are a testament to it’s effectiveness in transmitting the totality of the Faith. Do not misunderstand, I am not denigrating the effectiveness of the Novus Ordo Missae, I am merely stating that in this case, the original has as much, if not more, merit than its replacement.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

What I don’t like though is that Latin gets completely tossed aside. We have such a rich patrimony of music in Latin, to toss it out is akin to destroying a national monument.

And more than that. ther is nothing wrong with finding comfort and meaning in a tradition when if nurtures faith.

 

[pnewton]

While I will agree with the expansion during the Roman period, that does not explain the following expansion into northern Europe, the British Isles, Africa and the entirety of South and Central America, and Asia after the fall of Rome. Missionaries, mostly Jesuits, moved across the world teaching the Faith. I am certain they learned the local vernacular to educate the inhabitants, yet no one tampered with the Mass. It was never seen as a problem. A universal Church with a Universal language to worship. .

A universal language would be great, but that depends on what you call “universal”. I do not think more than the slightest minority in the Church speak or understand Latin. Its universality is rather thinly, but widely spread. It is useful for conformity to a single norm, but not for communicating to the vast majority of humanity. This is the advantage of the vernacular that Pope Francis is praising.

But I would not tie too much to language. First, the Church is still growing in places today where the vernacular is used. Second, Latin was the language during the two great schisms. Cause and effect are hard to know, but sometimes expanding the evidence one has, like these two statements, can lessen the possibility that this one thing is a significant cause. I have to think Pope Francis knows of what he speaks.

 

[ProVobis]

The Church grew because of the Roman Empire. If you recall history, Rome controlled much of the western world. Latin was the vernacular of the Empire and even where it was not the native tongue, it was still spoken.

I’ve read several books on the matter and it’s highly probable that Greek was the predominant vernacular of the Roman Empire at that time. Aramaic in some areas. Latin was the administrative * language of the Roman Empire, although a vulgar form of the language was later formed to be spoken, and this vulgar form morphed into the Romance languages we know today. The Church Christianized the Classic Latin Cicero, a Greek no less, had earlier codified with its grammar and most of its vocabulary intact. Words like gratia (grace) were created from the plural, oratio was now “prayer,” etc. This helped spread Christianity into areas of Africa and the like. It was through the genius and wisdom of preserving Church doctrine, laws, liturgy, documents, art, and scripture in Latin that it had grown into the formidable religion that it is today. But let’s leave some of the credit to other nonchanging languages such as Greek, Syriac, and others, as Pope John XXIII did in Veterum Sapientia.

• The inscription above the cross was written in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, Latin being the most probable of being on top.

 

[ProVobis]

Latin was the language during the two great schisms.

Wasn’t the Filioque the main reason for this schism? And partly because of the different Latin and Greek renderings of the scripture associated with it?

But what about the Reformation, which emphasized the vernacular and today we have over 30,000 different denominations? It doesn’t take long for the corruption of expression to take effect. We still have “for all” in some liturgies, among other corrupted translations.

 

[Stephen_says]

For your reading pleasure:

ROME–A letter written by an anonymous early Roman Christian was unearthed at the base of the Palatine Hills earlier this week, revealing that many Christians living in Rome at the time hated the Latin Mass because it was being said in the vernacular.

The letter, which scientists are dating back to the early 2nd century, reveals much angst and division in the early Church between those who believed it was acceptable to use the vernacular during Mass, and those that believed that Aramaic ought to have been the only acceptable language, as the use of it reportedly dates back to the first Mass said by Jesus Christ…

Read the rest of this remarkable article at eyeofthetiber.com/2014/08/07/report-some-2nd-century-roman-christians-hated-latin-mass-because-it-was-said-in-the-vernacular/

 

[pnewton]

Wasn’t the Filioque the main reason for this schism? And partly because of the different Latin and Greek renderings of the scripture associated with it?

I do not see how language could have anything to do with the schism (or the Protestant Reformation), any more than lack of Latin has caused anyone to leave the Church today. However, if we say that problems today are from using the vernacular, then we should use the same consistent logical fallacy on what has happened in other eras.